GDT: CAN vs USA Part II

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think Torts knows what to do with the lines. Kane isn't exactly always the most impressive player on international ice and I doubt Torts has forgiven him for his TO last game.

It's NHL ice not international. Unless you mean he's been underwhelming in international play.
 
Americans are going to have 20 different excuses, but it's the same thing as Sochi. Canadian dominance regardless if they bring skill focused team or a grit focused team.
 
Between the 2015 SCF and the World Cup, Stamkos being snake-bitten on the biggest stages is becoming a bit of a pattern.
 
Yes very true. On forward, Kane and Pavelski would make team Canada for sure and 1 or 2 others would be considered maybes. On defence, McDonagh and Suter would have a chance, otherwise none. Quick would likely make it as the backup to Price. So maybe 5 players from the USA would make team Canada.

The future is bright though for USA, some of the talent on team NA are elite potential.

Your optimism is higher than most. And no chance Quick makes team Canada. Even as a backup.
 
US only lost to Canada 1-0 in Sochi. It was actually a really good game.

That was the least competitive 1-0 in the history of hockey.

The US didn't look dangerous at all, and Canada possessed the puck and shut down US' snipers with ease.
 
USA losing this more than Canada winning it.

USA Hockey decision making the last three years or so has been unacceptable if you're a USA fan.

The problem is team USA hasn't had anyone who can score over the past few torneys on a consistant basis. Kane has 1 goal in 2 tourneys now I believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Ad