Canada/US exhibition match

[CREW99AW]

First off, I think they are brutal in comparison to the rest of the teams, or even teams that the USA usually iced, heres my breakdown:

*Ty Conklin: Bottom 15 goalie in the NHL, definite not top 10
*Rick Dipietro: Bottom 15 goalie in the NHL, definite not top 10
*Tim Thomas: Probably not even top 40 Goalies, but I really don't know him

*Hal Gill: Barely a top 4 in the NHL, but not on a contending team
*Jordan Leopold: Good defensemen, will be better, right now wouldn't consider elite
*John Micheal Liles: Great offensively, poor defensively
*Paul Martin: Non top four, or fringe top four
*Aaron Miller: Good defencemen, maybe there best two way
*Andy Roach: I don't know, didn't play in NHL last year

*Erik Cole: Sub par powerforward
*Mat Cullen: This guy shouldn't be on a national team
*Brian Gionta: See above
*Jeff Halpern: See above
*Mike Knuble: Described as a "star" by Park, but is not. Pretty good season last year though
David Legwand: Good player
Mike Modano: Great Player
*Richard Park: Doesn't deserve to be on a national team in any contending country
*Mark Parrish: Second liner in the NHL at best
Dough WeightL: Great Player- Getting worse
*Mike York: Second liner in the NHL at best

*Represents players that couldn't make team Canada (measure against the best)

This is a VERY critical analysis. I do understand that player can gell an what not, the argument is more about on paper.

what part of 'the US team is building a young core,it's not a final product' don't you understand?

 

[Rabid Ranger]

well i mean really look at that roster again....it is pretty crappy internationally speaking. It would make a good NHL team but this a much better level of hockey, and IMO he was right about most of his player characterization.
They may very well end up playing better than the sum of their parts (as the orginal list provider mentioned) and turn out to be a good team but as it looks on paper they are pretty average.

Much better level of hockey? I think you might want to check most of the rosters again. There are several countries that aren't icing their best, not by a long shot.

 

[RorschachWJK]

It's a moot point, and one I think alot of people on this site, American and otherwise are tired of seeing made. Canada, like every country can only ice one team, and while that team might be the best, is certainly beatable.

Agreed 100%. Stop beating the dead horse with this 'canada has the greatest depth of all hockey nations' crap. It's an obvious fact and everybody knows it. If you need to feel good about yourself, at least come up with something more original.

 

[RorschachWJK]

what part of 'the US team is building a young core,it's not a final product' don't you understand?

Exactly. IMO the right thing is being done with team USA now. We all saw what went down in the WCH last September with the squad that consisted mainly of older guys. Going young and throwing in a few motivated veterans seems like a good approach to me.

Unfortunately, there will always be some Canada/Finland/Russia/whatever Ãœber Alles hockey nazis with a tunnel vision who just can't be reasoned with, because all they see is their own favourite team.

 

[CDeeps]

Friday night's scrimmage will feature a few new players. Doug Weight, Erik Cole, and Tim Thomas will be available for Team USA, and Joe Thornton and Roberto Luongo are unlikely to be scratched again for Canada.

The addition of Weight and Cole certainly can't hurt. I'm assuming Thomas will split time with DiPietro in Quebec City.

 

[espo*]

I'll say never underestimate anyone,especially at this tournament.Tonight was an exhibition game,time to work out as many kinks as possible before the games that mean anything begin.Read very little into tonights tilt gentlemen.Though i am always glad to win.

 

[Ismellofhockey]

I remember a US team in 1980 that had NO NHL stars and a lot less talent.
They seemed to do okay.

And it seems like they also dubbed that "the miracle on ice", the original poster never said miracles couldn't happen or even that this current US squad couldn't surprise a few, but it would remain a surprise if they won the tournament.

This IS an average american squad even if I don't agree with all characterisations he listed. However, luckily for the US, all squads seem pretty average so I don't think they should be counted out, they did give Canada a good run last night.

 

[Wondercarrot]

Exactly. IMO the right thing is being done with team USA now. We all saw what went down in the WCH last September with the squad that consisted mainly of older guys. Going young and throwing in a few motivated veterans seems like a good approach to me.

Nobody said it wasn't a good approach, they and i have just said it looks like a very average team.

Unfortunately, there will always be some Canada/Finland/Russia/whatever Ãœber Alles hockey nazis with a tunnel vision who just can't be reasoned with, because all they see is their own favourite team.

ummm yeah because Canada's my team i can't see or comment on the fact that the US team looks weak?

 

[cagney]

If Canada is the standard then ALL other teams will fall short of the mark. Look at Finland's preliminary roster... how many of them have you even heard of? The Swedish team is going young with plenty of players who aren't, and may never be, NHL stars. Slovakia, while having a number of young stars, will also have plenty of sub-NHL standard players on their team. Then there are plenty of teams without any NHL'ers. This isn't a best-on-best tournament.

One thing I'll say for sure... this US team is way better than the usual teams the US ices at the World Championships. If you don't believe me go to the IIHF website and take a look at past rosters. There are usually plenty of sub-NHL standard players there. Almost everybody on this US team is an NHL regular as of last season. In fact, there are only three players who weren't full time NHL'ers last season on this team. How many other teams besides Canada can say that?

 

[Rabid Ranger]

If Canada is the standard then ALL other teams will fall short of the mark. Look at Finland's preliminary roster... how many of them have you even heard of? The Swedish team is going young with plenty of players who aren't, and may never be, NHL stars. Slovakia, while having a number of young stars, will also have plenty of sub-NHL standard players on their team. Then there are plenty of teams without any NHL'ers. This isn't a best-on-best tournament.

One thing I'll say for sure... this US team is way better than the usual teams the US ices at the World Championships. If you don't believe me go to the IIHF website and take a look at past rosters. There are usually plenty of sub-NHL standard players there. Almost everybody on this US team is an NHL regular as of last season. In fact, there are only three players who weren't full time NHL'ers last season on this team. How many other teams besides Canada can say that?

What kills me is is that many of the posters that are calling the U.S. team "brutal" are among the first to laud the play of individual players that play on their favorite NHL teams (such as Leopold in Calgary or Martin in New Jersey). All of a sudden you get these guys together and the team blows? Whatever......

 

[cagney]

For those of you that don't have a CLUE what you're talking about, go to this site and look at some of the exhibition scores. Germany beating Sweden? Switzerland beating Finland? A Russian club team beating Russia? Denmark beating Slovakia? Now look at the US game versus Canada and tell us US fans that the team is "brutal."

Link

 

[gretzky99]

I get it now. You think that for a team to be considered "good" it has to be made up of elite NHLers who would be able to make Team Canada. We'll see how things play out, but I think you'll be surprised how well this team does.

"I get it now", you can't read. "I do understand that players can gell an what not, the argument is more about on paper."

- You reply with -

"I get it now. You think that for a team to be considered "good" it has to be made up of elite NHLers who would be able to make Team Canada. We'll see how things play out, but I think you'll be surprised how well this team does."

In my quote I clearly stated that I do understand that players can gell, meaning that a team can be good because of the way it plays together.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

"I get it now", you can't read. "I do understand that players can gell an what not, the argument is more about on paper."

- You reply with -

"I get it now. You think that for a team to be considered "good" it has to be made up of elite NHLers who would be able to make Team Canada. We'll see how things play out, but I think you'll be surprised how well this team does."

In my quote I clearly stated that I do understand that players can gell, meaning that a team can be good because of the way it plays together.

Right, and on paper you think the U.S. team is brutal, an assessment you partly base on whether the individual players on the U.S. team could make Team Canada. NEWSFLASH! That's isn't the only harbinger of success!

 

[gretzky99]

Right, and on paper you think the U.S. team is brutal, an assessment you partly base on whether the individual players on the U.S. team could make Team Canada. NEWSFLASH! That's isn't the only harbinger of success!

My, argument, presented above, was that the Canadian team was better on paper. I realise, as stated above, that it doesn't completely matter. What is your argument? I know, the team could gel and be a lot better then they look, I am simply stating that as of now, there roster looks very mediocre. You can dissagree if you want, as I know you well.

 

[Shareefruck]

First off, I think they are brutal in comparison to the rest of the teams, or even teams that the USA usually iced, heres my breakdown:

*Ty Conklin: Bottom 15 goalie in the NHL, definite not top 10
*Rick Dipietro: Bottom 15 goalie in the NHL, definite not top 10
*Tim Thomas: Probably not even top 40 Goalies, but I really don't know him

*Hal Gill: Barely a top 4 in the NHL, but not on a contending team
*Jordan Leopold: Good defensemen, will be better, right now wouldn't consider elite
*John Micheal Liles: Great offensively, poor defensively
*Paul Martin: Non top four, or fringe top four
*Aaron Miller: Good defencemen, maybe there best two way
*Andy Roach: I don't know, didn't play in NHL last year

*Erik Cole: Sub par powerforward
*Mat Cullen: This guy shouldn't be on a national team
*Brian Gionta: See above
*Jeff Halpern: See above
*Mike Knuble: Described as a "star" by Park, but is not. Pretty good season last year though
David Legwand: Good player
Mike Modano: Great Player
*Richard Park: Doesn't deserve to be on a national team in any contending country
*Mark Parrish: Second liner in the NHL at best
Dough WeightL: Great Player- Getting worse
*Mike York: Second liner in the NHL at best

*Represents players that couldn't make team Canada (measure against the best)

This is a VERY critical analysis. I do understand that player can gell an what not, the argument is more about on paper.

I'll agree with everything but Gionta, and Halpern. They're quality 3rd liners similar to our Maltby/Fisher picks ( probably weaker ).

I don't think the US team looks nearly as bad as some people are making them out to be. They still have a few more key players than some other teams ( Modano, Weight, Knuble, Leopold ), and do actually have a decent supporting cast.

I think US is just below the crop of real contenders- Canada and Czechs, maybe Russia.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

My, argument, presented above, was that the Canadian team was better on paper. I realise, as stated above, that it doesn't completely matter. What is your argument? I know, the team could gel and be a lot better then they look, I am simply stating that as of now, there roster looks very mediocre. You can disagree if you want, as I know you well.

You bet people are going to disagree. Last year (World Cup) Team USA went with the team that looked good on paper and picked guys with hockey reputation. By the end of the tournament, our top winger was benched and the team's offense was entirely Tkachuck. It was pathetic. This year they're going with a bunch of young guys that want to make a name for themselves. Any finish better than last years will be a suprise and a sign of better things to come.

 

[silver_made*]

First off, I think they are brutal in comparison to the rest of the teams, or even teams that the USA usually iced, heres my breakdown:

*Ty Conklin: Bottom 15 goalie in the NHL, definite not top 10
*Rick Dipietro: Bottom 15 goalie in the NHL, definite not top 10
*Tim Thomas: Probably not even top 40 Goalies, but I really don't know him

*Hal Gill: Barely a top 4 in the NHL, but not on a contending team
*Jordan Leopold: Good defensemen, will be better, right now wouldn't consider elite
*John Micheal Liles: Great offensively, poor defensively
*Paul Martin: Non top four, or fringe top four
*Aaron Miller: Good defencemen, maybe there best two way
*Andy Roach: I don't know, didn't play in NHL last year

*Erik Cole: Sub par powerforward
*Mat Cullen: This guy shouldn't be on a national team
*Brian Gionta: See above
*Jeff Halpern: See above
*Mike Knuble: Described as a "star" by Park, but is not. Pretty good season last year though
David Legwand: Good player
Mike Modano: Great Player
*Richard Park: Doesn't deserve to be on a national team in any contending country
*Mark Parrish: Second liner in the NHL at best
Dough WeightL: Great Player- Getting worse
*Mike York: Second liner in the NHL at best

*Represents players that couldn't make team Canada (measure against the best)

This is a VERY critical analysis. I do understand that player can gell an what not, the argument is more about on paper.

i would love to have read your player-by-player analysis of team USA going into the Lake Placid Olympics.

I sleep peacefully at night knowing you don't make roster decisions for my favorite teams.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Wow...an exhibition match has this many people riled up. Can you tell we miss our hockey?

In all fairness, you can't judge jack from an exhibition game. And everyone knows that a team can look like the total underdog and still manage to take home the gold.

I'll say that Gold is a sure thing for Canada when we win it. Until then, it's anyone's prize. Teams can choke, teams can surprise people. I hope we win, and I think we will. But it's far from a sure thing, and to tell other people they have no chance is kind of ignorant.

Just my two cents, but it will probably be lost in the Canada vs USA naysayers trying to bash the crap out of each other.

~Canucklehead~

 

[time]

Might as well ask now (although I know the answer...) is anybody carrying this game? Local radio? internet webcast? realtime scores? The Orbit Middle East TV network?

It's 2005. How is this blackout possible?

 

[therealdeal]

You bet people are going to disagree. Last year (World Cup) Team USA went with the team that looked good on paper and picked guys with hockey reputation. By the end of the tournament, our top winger was benched and the team's offense was entirely Tkachuck. It was pathetic. This year they're going with a bunch of young guys that want to make a name for themselves. Any finish better than last years will be a suprise and a sign of better things to come.

I dont think Team USA looked good on paper for the World Cup.

 

[Berkut]

The second game is today right? Is it broadcasted on any channel?

 

[Rabid Ranger]

The second game is today right? Is it broadcasted on any channel?

I don't know about being shown, but you can listen to it here: http://www.team990.com/team990.asx


The U.S. is currently up 1-0 going into the 2nd on a goal by Matt Cullen.

 

[Burnaby_Joe*]

I don't know about being shown, but you can listen to it here: http://www.team990.com/team990.asx

Thanx for the link.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Thanx for the link.

No problem. The score is now 1-1 on a gift from DiPietro it would seem.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Canada is now up 3-1. U.S. penalty killing is getting waxed.