WJC: Canada 2019 Roster Talk Part 2

[780il]

How was Ty Smith

Smith and Bouchard were the only ones that looked semi good yesterday. Everyone was a tire fire in their own zone, but at least Smith and Bouchard got the puck up to the forwards effectively and quickly.

 

[funruiner]

I've seen worse rosters. Excited for this all to start and hope we can make it happen this year.

 

[CanuckistanFlyerfan]

I've seen worse rosters. Excited for this all to start and hope we can make it happen this year.

 

[Boonk]

Defense Review:

Lots of mistakes by the defense on TC today: Puck went off Bouchard 's stick cost the 1st goal; Brook lost neutral battle and caused the turnover costed the 2nd goal; Smith & Dobson not in position caused the 3rd goal.

Forward Review:

Lafreniere looks like he is an under-ager, looks slow and soft, please review the 3rd period - 11:25 minutes.
I would prefer to have some other 19 years old forward player. Lafreniere did not look good.

Yep, just single out one sole forward, great analysis.

 

[Masch78]

What?

 

[kabidjan18]

Yep, just single out one sole forward, great analysis.

This kinda snarky comment will land well with the pro-lafreniere crowd, but it's a ridiculous standard. No one here has done a player by player breakdown, and the vast majority of posts have singled out either one or at best two individuals for criticism. People are allowed to point out if one person didn't impress them, there's nothing methodologically wrong with that.

 

[stampedingviking]

Time for the infighting to end gentlemen and time instead to circle the wagons, who one prefers or whether someone is a prospect in your n.h.l teams organization matters nothing anymore........................the job of the team is to win and it's our job to support them come what may.

The rest of the hockey world hates us, if you don't believe that you must not spend much time here. We're all we have and what we have is better then all the rest combined in this game called hockey............................that's why they hate us. Our job is to now support the team, the tradition,the history, it's an heirloom

Don't forget that.

No, but it's understandable they dislike some of the posters on here.

I would always root for Canada over USA or Russia. It's just that some posters think Canada has a God-given right to win everything because it's "their game".

 

[BrianSTC]

This kinda snarky comment will land well with the pro-lafreniere crowd, but it's a ridiculous standard. No one here has done a player by player breakdown, and the vast majority of posts have singled out either one or at best two individuals for criticism. People are allowed to point out if one person didn't impress them, there's nothing methodologically wrong with that.

I think the problem with the “anti-Lafreniere” post was the fact that the poster claims “any 19-year-old” player would be better. Not this or that player would be better. Lafreniere is among the scoring leaders in a league that includes 19-year-old players. It is not like this tournament is out of his league. Carrying Lafreniere give him valuable experience for next year at the very least and obviously fans want to see him play....

 

[Statsy]

No, but it's understandable they dislike some of the posters on here.

I would always root for Canada over USA or Russia. It's just that some posters think Canada has a God-given right to win everything because it's "their game".

Our media here in Canada gives us a steady diet of that propaganda, most notably the chest thumping commercials. It also has to do with a culture that has an inferiority complex due to it's relationship with its much bigger brother, the US. Hockey is the thing we know we're really good at, above all else and as a nation we like to proudly proclaim that. As for the "Our game" part of that, Canada also happened to create and develop the sport... so there's that. My only point here is that, yes, some Canadians on this site will come off as arrogant about the sport, but just understand that the country raised them to be that way.

 

[Cellee]

I am fine with Canadians being confident about hockey.

We have every reason to be.

 

[snipes]

I am fine with Canadians being confident about hockey.

We have every reason to be.

Hear hear.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

After calming down a bit from last night I really think Hunter needs to stick to 3 defense pairs and let them get comfortable with one another. Versatility is a good characteristic to have but it has to be natural and not at the cost of souring ones confidence, especially Dobson.

 

[Superlative Soup]

this team is going to be allright. they are not going to score a lot of goals against the big teams and there lies the difficulty. Can they play in their own end. Dipietro looked shaky. Easy to say because it is true. We are going to have to have the best goalie in the tournament to win this and isn't it about time we did.
Comtois looks like Getslaf and has he ever improved. Leave Lafreniere alone. He will figure it out.

More worried about the defense tbh

 

[Boonk]

This kinda snarky comment will land well with the pro-lafreniere crowd, but it's a ridiculous standard. No one here has done a player by player breakdown, and the vast majority of posts have singled out either one or at best two individuals for criticism. People are allowed to point out if one person didn't impress them, there's nothing methodologically wrong with that.

Theres nothing "pro lafreniere" about my "snarky comment". He "analysed" the forwards and only criticized lafreniere, and it wasnt a very good analysis of him to begin with.

 

[kabidjan18]

Theres nothing "pro lafreniere" about my "snarky comment". He "analysed" the forwards and only criticized lafreniere, and it wasnt a very good analysis of him to begin with.

I didnt say there was anything "pro-lafreniere" in your comment, but that people who read it and are "pro-lafreniere" would like it, and that was true.

Second, by your arbitrary standard, as i pointed out earlier, most comments on this board would then be poor analysis. So this standard is clearly ridiculous, at least in the context of HFBOARDS.

 

[Boonk]

I didnt say there was anything "pro-lafreniere" in your comment, but that people who read it and are "pro-lafreniere" would like it, and that was true.

Second, by your arbitrary standard, as i pointed out earlier, most comments on this board would then be poor analysis. So this standard is clearly ridiculous, at least in the context of HFBOARDS.

It really isnt if you actually watched the game last night and know that his analysis isnt good

 

[kabidjan18]

It really isnt if you actually watched the game last night and know that his analysis isnt good

But that's not the grounds you criticized him on. Those are the grounds I thought you should have criticized him on. It's one thing to say "you're wrong because of this substantive observation." It's another thing to say "this is bad analysis because it only criticizes one player, though almost every other post on these boards criticize either only one player or at best two players." I'm not saying his analysis is good. I'm saying the grounds on which you chose to attack his analysis are way too broad.

 

[Plub]

i dont see canada better than a bronze

Are you new to how this works? Canada always has a shot at gold, always.

 

[jj cale]

No, but it's understandable they dislike some of the posters on here.

I would always root for Canada over USA or Russia. It's just that some posters think Canada has a God-given right to win everything because it's "their game".

Bullshit, the Canadian fans here when it comes to international hockey don't go on nearly as bad or nearly in the bad numbers as fans from countries I won't name here, not even close. If you really believe what you are saying here you aren't paying attention..................or don't want to see it.

if you think Canadian fans get out of line and they have reason to be hated then what on earth do you think of the others? have you not seen that? I guess they should all be hated double then.


Now being idiots concerning their club team in the N.H.L, that I would give you.

Anyway, I know the truth, thats good enough for me.

 

[Boonk]

But that's not the grounds you criticized him on. Those are the grounds I thought you should have criticized him on. It's one thing to say "you're wrong because of this substantive observation." It's another thing to say "this is bad analysis because it only criticizes one player, though almost every other post on these boards criticize either only one player or at best two players." I'm not saying his analysis is good. I'm saying the grounds on which you chose to attack his analysis are way too broad.

Nice speech but it still doesnt disprove the point that his analysis of Lafreniere isnt good and that his analysis of the 'forwards' is far from good.

 

[Thebesthockey]

Are you new to how this works? Canada always has a shot at gold, always.

i dont see it this year
with villardi and formenton gone

not sure

i see

russians
USA
sweden/canada

 

[kabidjan18]

Nice speech but it still doesnt disprove the point that his analysis of Lafreniere isnt good and that his analysis of the 'forwards' is far from good.

My critique is regardless of whether or not his analysis is good, because your argument is not on substantive grounds but on very specific procedural grounds.

If you said "Connor McDavid is not a top 10 player in the NHL" and my response was "horrible analysis bro, you used English instead of French." My grounds for dismissing your analysis can be bad AND your analysis can be bad. I can be accidentally right that your analysis is awful, I may even be accidentally right that your analysis is flawed on some procedural grounds, and still have bad grounds on which I stake my claim.

My claim isn't that he's right, but that your grounds for attacking his statement are untenable. So far, you've said nothing to prove otherwise.

 

[InSuL1nImP]

WHY ARE WE ALL FIGHTING? IT'S CHRISTMAS TIME. CAN'T WE SMOKE AND EAT SOME EDIBLES? LETS COMPLAIN ABOUT THINGS THAT MATTER. LIKE BEING DRAGGED TO CHRISTMAS PARTIES IN-LAWS THAT WE HATE ETC.....

 

[SanBlom]

US boy here and I love all of you Canucks! Hockey is your thing and I'm glad that you can thump your chest about it. Maple Syrup is good. Poutine.....wtf? You're all funny. Flyers are my number one team, but the next 10 on my list consist of all of the Canadian teams. US hockey has come a long way, but its still yours and I'm ok with it.

Lafreniere topic - he looks good and will be good. Dude just has a problem with him. I have some of those players that I just dont like and will say they suck even if I know deep down, they really dont (Dougie Hamilton is one). Maybe that is what is happening?

 

[Boonk]

My critique is regardless of whether or not his analysis is good, because your argument is not on substantive grounds but on very specific procedural grounds.

If you said "Connor McDavid is not a top 10 player in the NHL" and my response was "horrible analysis bro, you used English instead of French." My grounds for dismissing your analysis can be bad AND your analysis can be bad. I can be accidentally right that your analysis is awful, I may even be accidentally right that your analysis is flawed on some procedural grounds, and still have bad grounds on which I stake my claim.

My claim isn't that he's right, but that your grounds for attacking his statement are untenable. So far, you've said nothing to prove otherwise.

What even is this example lol.

Im not even gonna go further with you, its like talking to a brick wall. His analysis sucked because it was dull and was barely an analysis, and the points he made are discredited by how Lafreniere actually played the game. Not my fault its too hard for you to comprehend. Have fun writing your next paragraph of whatever.