Why wasn't Bobby Ryan on Team USA?

[trahans99]

I read an article the other that suggests Ryan may have been left off the team b/c he is playing in CHL not in the US?

Anyone have any ideas why he was left off the team? I know he is 17 but he has a lot of skill and toughness which the US could've used IMO. The coach and GM of Owen Sound said theres no way they shouldn't take him.

Click to read more...

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I read an article the other that suggests Ryan may have been left off the team b/c he is playing in CHL not in the US?

Anyone have any ideas why he was left off the team? I know he is 17 but he has a lot of skill and toughness which the US could've used IMO. The coach and GM of Owen Sound said theres no way they shouldn't take him.

Draft eligible CHL players are rarely named to the U.S. WJC team. I'd look for him to be a strong candidate for next year's squad.

 

[trahans99]

Draft eligible CHL players are rarely named to the U.S. WJC team. I'd look for him to be a strong candidate for next year's squad.

I know they are rarely named, but why? Kessel was named and he's younger than Ryan (i think). I know Kessel is a great player but Ryan should have been named to IMO.

 

[nomorekids]

I know they are rarely named, but why? Kessel was named and he's younger than Ryan (i think). I know Kessel is a great player but Ryan should have been named to IMO.

he'll be there next year. they couldn't take kessel AND ryan, and kessel won out. The US will lose a few players next year(O'Sullivan, Fritsche, Stafford) and Ryan will fill one of the holes.

 

[Form and Substance]

They could have called him up after Bourque's injury.

 

[flip588]

he'll be there next year. they couldn't take kessel AND ryan, and kessel won out. The US will lose a few players next year(O'Sullivan, Fritsche, Stafford) and Ryan will fill one of the holes.

Is there an actual rule that prevents both Ryan and Kessell from being there?

 

[nomorekids]

Is there an actual rule that prevents both Ryan and Kessell from being there?

no, but kessel wasn't even expected to play as anything more than a 13th forward. there was no reason to bring in another young forward who may or may not have gotten playing time. Really, aside from Pineault...none of the US forwards really had a bad tournament..and Schremp\Kessel took Pineault\Bourque's spots anyway, pretty much.

 

[FearTheFlyers]

It's most likely because he snubbed the under 17 team.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

It's most likely because he snubbed the under 17 team.

I'm sure politics reared its ugly head.......once again.

 

[BuppY]

he'll be on next years team for sure.

 

[cagney]

I really just think they didn't feel they needed another young forward. They had a good amount of older, skilled forwards and some older 'role player' types so where does Ryan fit in? The biggest problem the US forwards had was chemistry and Ryan couldn't have helped that.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I really just think they didn't feel they needed another young forward. They had a good amount of older, skilled forwards and some older 'role player' types so where does Ryan fit in? The biggest problem the US forwards had was chemistry and Ryan couldn't have helped that.

I agree with your first point, but disagree with your second. IMO, the forward group was fine, it was the defense and goaltending that was the weak link.

 

[orangeandblack]

bobby will be on the team next year. there wasnt room for another scoring forward that young, and they should have taken hennessey if there was, anyway. he would have only helped if he were on the top 2 lines, and he wouldnt have been. they were definitely more inlcined to give a kessel a spot over ryan bc hes a better all around player, and they know him well, hes playing in front of them all season. that point is why i dont understand the jack johnson ommission, they would have known exactly what they were getten, w brian lee, they really dindnt have a clue, which hurt.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

What was wrogn with team usa this year? Was it the players didn't show up, bad player selection, or coaching was just bunk?

 

[LaLaLaprise]

What was wrogn with team usa this year? Was it the players didn't show up, bad player selection, or coaching was just bunk?

Defensive play and Goaltending.

 

[nomorekids]

Defensive play and Goaltending.

i think, and maybe i'm in the minority here...but...the defense, while bad...could have been better if the coaching wasn't HORRIFIC. that was the start and end of the problems, and i'm dreading the fact that sandelin isn't going to shoulder enough of the blame for this and he'll be there against next year. If he had used his assets properly...A LOT of goals wouldn't have been scored. He'd have Suter out...who would neutralize his man...but what good would it do when sharing top pairing minutes was Jeff Likens, who would leave his man free to do what he wanted? If he had set up the pairings this way:

Suter Borer- 30-35 minutes

a lot, but these two can handle it

Hagemo Goligoski

15-20 minutes

Likens Hunwick

10 or so minutes

keep these two off the ice as much as possible

Instead, he would pair his stronger d-men with a weak partner..which was practically only taking care of part of the problem at a time. Goaltending was shaky at times, but Montoya faced a lot that he should never have faced to begin with.

 

[cagney]

I agree with your first point, but disagree with your second. IMO, the forward group was fine, it was the defense and goaltending that was the weak link.

The second comment was specifically directed at the forwards. The defense and goaltending were without question the weakest parts of the team but I also felt that the forwards didn't have very good chemistry. They scored but I wasn't overly impressed with how they played together in the offensive end. This was particularly evident during the Belarus game where the skilled US forwards just didn't create anything until it was too late.

 

[orangeandblack]

does anyone think the US should take a different approach when selecting forwards? they selected a group of 13 that they thought would have the best chemistry, not their 13 most skilled players available, and they obviously didnt have much chemistry. in this instance weller, brown, porter, dowell, and bourque were selected bc they thought they would assume their role as grinders, even though theres many other players out there with more skill. it seems like canada chose their 12 or 13 most skilled players, not really worrying if a 4th liner had as much skill as a 2nd liner. it worked for canada, i wonder if this is a better approach for usa hockey.

 

[Sammy*]

does anyone think the US should take a different approach when selecting forwards? they selected a group of 13 that they thought would have the best chemistry, not their 13 most skilled players available, and they obviously didnt have much chemistry. in this instance weller, brown, porter, dowell, and bourque were selected bc they thought they would assume their role as grinders, even though theres many other players out there with more skill. it seems like canada chose their 12 or 13 most skilled players, not really worrying if a 4th liner had as much skill as a 2nd liner. it worked for canada, i wonder if this is a better approach for usa hockey.

You got it wrong bud. Canada picked players it thought would make the best team & assume certain roles (although they were all talented), who were not neccesarily the most skilled.. Thats why a guy like Bernier didnt even get an invite.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

does anyone think the US should take a different approach when selecting forwards? they selected a group of 13 that they thought would have the best chemistry, not their 13 most skilled players available, and they obviously didnt have much chemistry. in this instance weller, brown, porter, dowell, and bourque were selected bc they thought they would assume their role as grinders, even though theres many other players out there with more skill. it seems like canada chose their 12 or 13 most skilled players, not really worrying if a 4th liner had as much skill as a 2nd liner. it worked for canada, i wonder if this is a better approach for usa hockey.

I don't think anyone was expecting Kevin Porter and Chris Bourque (among others) to be "grinders." The approach was taken to select the players that would constitute the best team, not a collection of the most talent. We can argue with the selections, but I can't really argue with the idea behind the selections. Chemistry isn't exactly an exact science, at least in the context of putting a winning team together. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

[FearTheFlyers]

they were definitely more inlcined to give a kessel a spot over ryan bc hes a better all around player.

That's EXTREMELY arguable at this stage in their careers.

 

[BCCHL inactive]

They could have called him up after Bourque's injury.

No they couldn't have. Once the tournament is underway, your roster is frozen. That's why Canada didn't get to call anybody up when Colliton went down.

 

[orangeandblack]

Draft eligible CHL players are rarely named to the U.S. WJC team. I'd look for him to be a strong candidate for next year's squad.

not so true, theyve given spots to connolly, osullivan, gleason and dustin brown, etc in the past. this year i just dont think they had enough room for 2 17 yr olds up front especially when they thought they could place in the top 3.

 

[orangeandblack]

that was a bad choice of words labeling porter and bourque as grinders, bc they arent.

i dunno, maybe bc canada was so deep this year, it seemed like their 4th line was equivilent to most other top teams 2nd lines. im not too familar with canadas roster or player selection other then basic knowledge, they just had a ton of fire power this year.