Toggle sidebar

WJC: 2016 — USA Roster Talk

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rabid Ranger said:
The second guessing will come if this team struggle to score. It's still a very talented roster up front with some defined roles on the 3rd and 4th lines. Defense is a bigger question mark, but that was always going to be the case on this team. It would be great if Hanifin was released as he would be that anchor along with Werenski. Goaltending is a bit of unknown as well. I think they expected Halverson and and Ned to be the guys, but Halverson in particular has had a middling year. Parsons and Opilka have been solid on stacked teams.
Click to expand...

Is Werenski a returnee from last year? I feel like I recognize that name.
 
TheJuxtaposer said:
I would be super stoked if Bellows and Keller made it... But combine them with Matthews, Tkachuk, DeBrincat, and possibly McAvoy and Krys and that would be seven underagers. I HIGHLY doubt that would happen.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but after reading Jim Johansson's comments, this team will be young and will not surprise me at all if both Keller and Bellows are there. The way these young kids are playing right now, there is no reason to leave them off due to age if they are excelling against older competition which most if not all are.

Just imagine if they bring all these kids how stacked they will be with returning players next year!
 
AmericanDream said:
Agreed, but after reading Jim Johansson's comments, this team will be young and will not surprise me at all if both Keller and Bellows are there. The way these young kids are playing right now, there is no reason to leave them off due to age if they are excelling against older competition which most if not all are.

Just imagine if they bring all these kids how stacked they will be with returning players next year!
Click to expand...

Even if they make it this year USA hockey will probably cut them next year like Tuch
 
are there any writers who cover the WJC and/or team USA that are worth reading/following on twitter?
 
You can count me among the sizable group of people shocked by the camp omissions. I know some have defended these moves by saying that those guys were just trying to get by on their reputations, but the fact is you EARN your reputation by having put up a successful body of work over several years. You definitely shouldn't be judged by a single evaluation camp held in August! I by no means am saying that those guys should be on the final team, but to not even give them a shot at the December camp is a big mistake in my books. What was that USA Hockey address again? :laugh:
 
AmericanDream said:
Agreed, but after reading Jim Johansson's comments, this team will be young and will not surprise me at all if both Keller and Bellows are there. The way these young kids are playing right now, there is no reason to leave them off due to age if they are excelling against older competition which most if not all are.

Just imagine if they bring all these kids how stacked they will be with returning players next year!
Click to expand...

And if they do the same thing again next year? ...

Its a win now kind of thing.
 
TheJuxtaposer said:
I would be super stoked if Bellows and Keller made it... But combine them with Matthews, Tkachuk, DeBrincat, and possibly McAvoy and Krys and that would be seven underagers. I HIGHLY doubt that would happen.
Click to expand...
Unless you also consider White, Werenski and Boeser underagers then Matthews, Tkachuck and Debrinecat aren't. All are 97's just born later in the year and therefore aren't eligible to be drafted til this year.
 
93LEAFS said:
Unless you also consider White, Werenski and Boeser underagers then Matthews, Tkachuck and Debrinecat aren't. All are 97's just born later in the year and therefore aren't eligible to be drafted til this year.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting NHL draft eligibility is what defines an underage player for this tournament? What does the NHL rule and an arbitrary date established to determine draft eligibility in a given year have to do with an international U20 tournament? Any player born in 1997 or later with a year(s) remaining of eligibility in this tournament is by definition an underage player.
 
Mr Writer said:
Are you suggesting NHL draft eligibility is what defines an underage player for this tournament? What does the NHL rule and an arbitrary date established to determine draft eligibility in a given year have to do with an international U20 tournament? Any player born in 1997 or later with a year(s) remaining of eligibility in this tournament is by definition an underage player.
Click to expand...
No, he's saying the underager tag is meaningless with a guy just a few months younger than a guy technically not considered an underager.
 
Statsy said:
No, he's saying the underager tag is meaningless with a guy just a few months younger than a guy technically not considered an underager.
Click to expand...

it doesn't really matter what the relevance or significance is of the underage tag in relation to one player's b-day/b-year compared to another. Any player with eligibility remaining after this year is an underage player. That's really all there is to it.
 
Despite those cuts, the US is still a strong team and when making tournament predictions, nothing really changed that much for me. I don't really understand how anyone can say they are below Sweden or Finland. I didn't have them as favorites then, I don't have them now (it's Canada for me, sorry :)), but that doesn't change the fact that I expect them to make the GMG. Still incredibly good offense.
 
Apparently Jack Roslovic and Kyle Connor were the key to the US attack. Who knew?

I guess Matthews, Tkachuk, DeBrincat, Milano, Boeser, Dvorak, White, Schmaltz, Bellows and Keller will have to handle the offensive workload by themselves. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
Mr Writer said:
it doesn't really matter what the relevance or significance is of the underage tag in relation to one player's b-day/b-year compared to another. Any player with eligibility remaining after this year is an underage player. That's really all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Nobody is questioning what the technical definition of an underager is. His concern was that the players' abilities were being brought into question unnecessarily due to an ageism view that was a non factor. From a hockey experience point of view, it matters little if you are comparing a player born on the last day of eligibility to a player born the following day that would be considered an underager. Understand?

By the way, my spellcheck doesn't like the word underager. It thinks we're just making that s**t up! :laugh:
 
Statsy said:
Nobody is questioning what the technical definition of an underager is. His concern was that the players' abilities were being brought into question unnecessarily due to an ageism view that was a non factor. From a hockey experience point of view, it matters little if you are comparing a player born on the last day of eligibility to a player born the following day that would be considered an underager. Understand?

By the way, my spellcheck doesn't like the word underager. It thinks we're just making that s**t up! :laugh:
Click to expand...

I view the U20 tournament as a skill tournament and not an age tournament. You win it with skill, but the preference would be to have 19 year olds with skill. There's plenty of proof which suggests that young teams made up of mostly underagers don't do well. Canada in Malmo with 11 underagers did not perform well. but Sweden in 2012 with 9 iirc did perform well. The right number is somewhere around 5-7. when the number exceeds that, then I start to worry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom