Roenick: The Old guard deserves one more chance for US Olympic team

Status
Not open for further replies.

joe_shannon_1983*

Guest
Jazz said:
I just saw the teaser on the SCORE (in Canada). Jeremy Roenick will on at 8pm PST (11pm EST), and the clip in the teaser had him saying that players like Chelios, him, Amonte should be on the Olympic team.

I personally would take Roenick and Chelios on Team U.S.A.

Roenick is still one of the best 13 American forwards, and Chelios has tons of experience.

However, I am not so sure about guys like Amonte and LeClair. I think that perhaps they should be left off.
 

William H Bonney

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
25,082
7,142
Colorado
ferns8916 said:
I personally would take Roenick and Chelios on Team U.S.A.

Roenick is still one of the best 13 American forwards, and Chelios has tons of experience.

However, I am not so sure about guys like Amonte and LeClair. I think that perhaps they should be left off.


Roenick won't be on the team, unless he seriously picks it up. LeClair won't be either. I think Amonte has a good shot, and Chelly maybe as the 6th or 7th dman for experience and leadership.
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
I'm sure non-US hockey fans all over the world agree with Roenick! :)
 

espo*

Guest
Roenick and Chelios maybe,but they're crazy if they take Leclair,he just is a shadow of his former self.
 

RorschachWJK

Registered User
Dec 28, 2004
4,943
1,305
Pepper said:
I'm sure non-US hockey fans all over the world agree with Roenick! :)

Yes, I sure hope they ice all those grandpas ;) A young, fast and hungry US team would be considerably more difficult to beat.
 

espo*

Guest
Boucicaut said:
Yes, I sure hope they ice all those grandpas ;) A young, fast and hungry US team would be considerably more difficult to beat.
Agree,it's time to let most of those guys go.Bring a fast,young team and let the chips fall where they may................that's there best chance and best way to get ready for the future.
 

wildone26*

Guest
The U.S seem to be wanting to go with the plan to sacrifice a bit for the present to help the future. The sooner to get the younger players out there, the quicker they will develop and learn how to play international style hockey, even if right now they might be slightly less effective playing international style hockey. I doubt that will change, that seems to have been their plan since the summer. I like that Roenick always gives his opinions though, he is a cool guy.
 

RorschachWJK

Registered User
Dec 28, 2004
4,943
1,305
cyclops said:
Agree,it's time to let most of those guys go.Bring a fast,young team and let the chips fall where they may................that's there best chance and best way to get ready for the future.

Yep. That type of team should do fine on the big ice, especially if obstruction is not tolerated there.
 

therealdeal

Registered User
Apr 22, 2005
4,633
257
wildone26 said:
The U.S seem to be wanting to go with the plan to sacrifice a bit for the present to help the future. The sooner to get the younger players out there, the quicker they will develop and learn how to play international style hockey, even if right now they might be slightly less effective playing international style hockey. I doubt that will change, that seems to have been their plan since the summer. I like that Roenick always gives his opinions though, he is a cool guy.

I disagree, you take the best players at the time, if you're just picking someone because he's young and could be good, then you're just basically accepting defeat for the tournament, and there is a good chance that he won't even help you with your next tournament.

I'd say the US in in trouble either way though.
 

Rabid Ranger

2 is better than one
Feb 27, 2002
31,140
11,171
Murica
I think the U.S. roster will be a bit more veteran laden than I thought, but that might not be such a bad thing. Guys like Amonte are actually playing well and want to make the team. If Roenick is playing at a high level, why not take him?
 

wildone26*

Guest
therealdeal said:
I disagree, you take the best players at the time, if you're just picking someone because he's young and could be good, then you're just basically accepting defeat for the tournament, and there is a good chance that he won't even help you with your next tournament.

I'd say the US in in trouble either way though.

I agree that is how it should be done. I am just opining what it seems the U.S plan has been since this summer, especially when you look at the players who were not taken for the World Championships last year who made themselves available if wanted, and even more tellingly the players who were not at their summer training camp for the U.S, since no longer was whether they had played in other leagues much of a factor in who was there, like it was at Worlds.
 

therealdeal

Registered User
Apr 22, 2005
4,633
257
wildone26 said:
I agree that is how it should be done. I am just opining what it seems the U.S plan has been since this summer, especially when you look at the players who were not taken for the World Championships last year who made themselves available if wanted, and even more tellingly the players who were not at their summer training camp for the U.S, since no longer was whether they had played in other leagues much of a factor in who was there, like it was at Worlds.

I'm not really aware of what went down in the WHC, can anyone fill me in?
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,146
I have no problem with all or the old guard making team USA. They won won in '96 and lost in '98 and '02 when they actually had a last chance of winning. But by '04 they were old. No matter what USA will either be old and washed up, or young and inerxperienced or not good enough. Or they'll compbine the two. Either way it'll be a riot (I mean a laugh riot) when or if Canada plays against them in the playoffs.
 

espo*

Guest
Rabid Ranger said:
I think the U.S. roster will be a bit more veteran laden than I thought, but that might not be such a bad thing. Guys like Amonte are actually playing well and want to make the team. If Roenick is playing at a high level, why not take him?
Because you've got Gomez,Modano,Weight and Conroy ahead of him,Rolston too i bet,heck,maybe even Legwand.Unless somethings changed with Roenicks game this year(and i have'nt heard that) why let him take one of those guys spots? Maybe you can stick the guy on the wing or something or have him as the 13th forward but i don't see why you'd bump anyone off for him.Leadership maybe,but not for much else.
 

joe_shannon_1983*

Guest
cyclops said:
Because you've got Gomez,Modano,Weight and Conroy ahead of him,Rolston too i bet,heck,maybe even Legwand.Unless somethings changed with Roenicks game this year(and i have'nt heard that) why let him take one of those guys spots? Maybe you can stick the guy on the wing or something or have him as the 13th forward but i don't see why you'd bump anyone off for him.Leadership maybe,but not for much else.

Doesn't Roenick usually play right wing in tournaments like these?

I think that you can take Roenick, and play him on right wing, alongside Gomez and perhaps Tkachuk.
 

Rabid Ranger

2 is better than one
Feb 27, 2002
31,140
11,171
Murica
Big Phil said:
I have no problem with all or the old guard making team USA. They won won in '96 and lost in '98 and '02 when they actually had a last chance of winning. But by '04 they were old. No matter what USA will either be old and washed up, or young and inerxperienced or not good enough. Or they'll compbine the two. Either way it'll be a riot (I mean a laugh riot) when or if Canada plays against them in the playoffs.


Are these the only threads you post in? Quite strange.
 

Rabid Ranger

2 is better than one
Feb 27, 2002
31,140
11,171
Murica
cyclops said:
Because you've got Gomez,Modano,Weight and Conroy ahead of him,Rolston too i bet,heck,maybe even Legwand.Unless somethings changed with Roenicks game this year(and i have'nt heard that) why let him take one of those guys spots? Maybe you can stick the guy on the wing or something or have him as the 13th forward but i don't see why you'd bump anyone off for him.Leadership maybe,but not for much else.

Roenick wouldn't make the team as a center, but I could seem him on the wing. He's probably not going to make it anyway, so all this talk is probably moot (to Big Phil's chagrin I'm sure.........).
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,146
Rabid Ranger said:
Roenick wouldn't make the team as a center, but I could seem him on the wing. He's probably not going to make it anyway, so all this talk is probably moot (to Big Phil's chagrin I'm sure.........).

Actually all I'm saying is that if a washed up over the Hill Roenick who's been out of his prime for ten years can make the team then you guys are in more trouble then I thought you were. No offense to Roenick but a guy like Yzerman knows when to pull out.
 

espo*

Guest
Rabid Ranger said:
Roenick wouldn't make the team as a center, but I could seem him on the wing. He's probably not going to make it anyway, so all this talk is probably moot (to Big Phil's chagrin I'm sure.........).
i agree,i don't think he'll be there and yes,he would be on the wing if he did.
 

espo*

Guest
ferns8916 said:
Doesn't Roenick usually play right wing in tournaments like these?

I think that you can take Roenick, and play him on right wing, alongside Gomez and perhaps Tkachuk.
He's a tough call.Too much mileage on his body for this tournament i think.
 

dhasek3910

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
1,781
0
Edmonton, AB, Canada
I wouldn't pick Roenick at all. If you go by what he's saying, why don't you just leave out young stars and forever ice the 1996 world cup of hockey winning usa team? Here's the difference between Yzerman and Roenick. Yzerman has the grace to admit he's been struggling. Roenick just shoots off his mouth and whines because he wants to play for his country, even though he knows he's not good enough to make it (Why else would he argue like this?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad