How many players on Team USA would you take over Kessel?

[xxxx]

Justin Abdelkader of course. The more 40 point players you have the harder it is for the opposition.

hockey is not just about points?

 

[Don Corleone]

hockey is not just about points?

Are you seriously arguing that Abdelkader is the better choice or that he will have more impact on the tournament than Kessel, if he was selected? It is not only about points sure but the better players you have the better the team and by far the best indicator of a players ability is points. Now chemistry plays a part and certain players are not fit for specific roles like the PK. That being said what does Abdelkader bring to the table that makes him the better option than Phil? In the last Olympics Kessel was named to the tournaments All Star Team, what has Abdelkader done? Lets not pretend that Kessel is some liability on the ice that has to be sheltered by his linemates. Picking role players for a best on best tournament is just flat out dumb, especially for the Americans who have such a great pool of talent to choose from. Which one would you rather have, a 4th line of 3rd line players who have little talent or a 4th line that consists of 1st liners?

 

[xxxx]

Are you seriously arguing that Abdelkader is the better choice or that he will have more impact on the tournament than Kessel, if he was selected? It is not only about points sure but the better players you have the better the team and by far the best indicator of a players ability is points. Now chemistry plays a part and certain players are not fit for specific roles like the PK. That being said what does Abdelkader bring to the table that makes him the better option than Phil? In the last Kessel was named to the tournaments All Star Team, what has Abdelkader done? Lets not pretend that Kessel is some liability on the ice that has to be sheltered by his linemates. Overall to me picking role players for a best on best tournament is just flat out dumb, especially for the Americans who have such a great pool of talent to choose from. Which one would you rather have, a 4th line of 3rd line players who have little talent or a 4th line that consists of 1st liners?

The USA has a certain game-plan and strategy they want to implement and they believe this is what will make them successful - particularly against Canada. Do I know all the reasons and why they want this or that and what exact game-plan they have? No. And I would personally take Kessel if it was me. But when I saw the roster again, and put 2 and 2 together, and then read what type of a team they want to ice, and that it is against Canada, it makes a lot of sense to me actually.

I think the US will be the toughest and most physical team of the tournament, maybe even more than Team Canada, and the team that will certainly be toughest for us to beat, I'm absolutely sure about that. So, will, at the end, Abdelkader be a better choice than Kessel for that particular team they want to ice? I think so. Again, I would personally have him on my team. But my team would maybe not have the game plan and the strategy the will have. It's reasonable to take Kessel if your game-plan is different then theirs, obviously. But the same way, it's reasonable for them to take the best players that they think will help them succeed in their game-plan that they think will be the most effective against Canada.

 

[Don Corleone]

Fair enough I seriously question what the Americans have done. Opting for grinders for the sake of being harder to play against in an international best on best tournament is a bad move. Its not too bad for a country that does not have talented players but snubbing Tyler Johnson, Kessel and Faulk just to make room for Jack Johnson, Dubinsky and Abdelkader sounds foolish. I always tought that the hardest team to play against is not some collection of grinders but instead the team that has the best roster, as long as they give it their best. For instance facing Callahan or Abdelkader is certainly easier than having to go against Tyler Johnson every single time no matter what the situation. I would get it if the tournament would be full of goons, fights and rough stuff but that is not the case. Hockey today is mostly about skating and skill instead of being tough, there is barely even any hard hitting anymore. Canada had the same foolish logic years ago but thankfully they came to their sences and have won the last Olympics because of it.

 

[JackSlater]

The USA has a certain game-plan and strategy they want to implement and they believe this is what will make them successful - particularly against Canada. Do I know all the reasons and why they want this or that and what exact game-plan they have? No. And I would personally take Kessel if it was me. But when I saw the roster again, and put 2 and 2 together, and then read what type of a team they want to ice, and that it is against Canada, it makes a lot of sense to me actually.

I think the US will be the toughest and most physical team of the tournament, maybe even more than Team Canada, and the team that will certainly be toughest for us to beat, I'm absolutely sure about that. So, will, at the end, Abdelkader be a better choice than Kessel for that particular team they want to ice? I think so. Again, I would personally have him on my team. But my team would maybe not have the game plan and the strategy the will have. It's reasonable to take Kessel if your game-plan is different then theirs, obviously. But the same way, it's reasonable for them to take the best players that they think will help them succeed in their game-plan that they think will be the most effective against Canada.

You believe that Rob Zamuner was a good pick for the Canadian Olympic team in 1998? He was picked for the exact reasons that you described above (except it was about beating USA). Looks like nothing more than typical deference to authority.

 

[xxxx]

You believe that Rob Zamuner was a good pick for the Canadian Olympic team in 1998? He was picked for the exact reasons that you described above (except it was about beating USA). Looks like nothing more than typical deference to authority.

Zamuner was probably a bad choice, but not only Canada was in a different situation, because the olympic surface was unknown and that was simply a time when the mistake "had to happen" to give you a lesson for the future, but one player, seriously? One player didn't ruin the tournament for Canada, and to bring back that pick as a proof, that something can not work (on a different ice-surface on top of that), today, or ever, is really feeble for me.

 

[JackSlater]

Zamuner was probably a bad choice, but not only Canada was in a different situation, because the olympic surface was unknown and that was simply a time when the mistake "had to happen" to give you a lesson for the future, but one player, seriously? One player didn't ruin the tournament for Canada, and to bring back that pick as a proof, that something can not work (on a different ice-surface on top of that), today, or ever, is really feeble for me.

Your statement makes no sense. Canada made strange picks in 1998 (Zamuner just the biggest example, Primeau is another) specifically just to beat USA. That is exactly the same situation that is taking place with USA. Ice surface size has nothing to do with it. Canada did somewhat learn a lesson... which makes me confused as to why you are acting like USA is wise to ignore that lesson.

I also didn't say that Zamuner single-handedly ruined the tournament for Canada, so I have no idea what you are reading. He was a bad pick. Sometimes teams with bad picks lose. Sometimes teams with bad picks (Kunitz with Canada in 2014, countless players in the 1987 and 1991 Canada Cups) win. I don' know why you are drawing poor inferences to support the weak argument you are making. Attempts to refute me by claiming something far beyond what I said do nothing for you.

USA made some bad picks. They made those picks to fulfill their strategy. The problem is that the strategy is outdated. The justifications for this pick are basically the same justifications we saw for Canadian teams in 1998 (designed to beat the Americans) and 2006 (need the right role players, tough etc.). Deferring to the authority of the American managers doesn't really excuse it. USA may win this tournament, who knows, but leaving behind its second most dangerous forward in order to take actual grinders (even at the NHL level) is wrong.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Your statement makes no sense. Canada made strange picks in 1998 (Zamuner just the biggest example, Primeau is another) specifically just to beat USA. That is exactly the same situation that is taking place with USA. Ice surface size has nothing to do with it. Canada did somewhat learn a lesson... which makes me confused as to why you are acting like USA is wise to ignore that lesson.

I also didn't say that Zamuner single-handedly ruined the tournament for Canada, so I have no idea what you are reading. He was a bad pick. Sometimes teams with bad picks lose. Sometimes teams with bad picks (Kunitz with Canada in 2014, countless players in the 1987 and 1991 Canada Cups) win. I don' know why you are drawing poor inferences to support the weak argument you are making. Attempts to refute me by claiming something far beyond what I said do nothing for you.

USA made some bad picks. They made those picks to fulfill their strategy. The problem is that the strategy is outdated. The justifications for this pick are basically the same justifications we saw for Canadian teams in 1998 (designed to beat the Americans) and 2006 (need the right role players, tough etc.). Deferring to the authority of the American managers doesn't really excuse it. USA may win this tournament, who knows, but leaving behind its second most dangerous forward in order to take actual grinders (even at the NHL level) is wrong.

Team Canada in 1987 played the best hockey I've ever seen. I'm curious as to who you think these "countless bad picks" were. (I agree with the rest of your post).

 

[JackSlater]

Team Canada in 1987 played the best hockey I've ever seen. I'm curious as to who you think these "countless bad picks" were. (I agree with the rest of your post).

The problem with the 1987 Canadian team is that it was constructed to be like an NHL team, where every team has a talent shortage. This team had Gretzky and Lemieux, both essentially in their primes, with prime Bourque and Coffey as a top pairing, playing with NHL refs on NHL sized ice, and it still came as close as possible to losing without actually losing. The Soviets were great, but they didn't have great goaltending and weren't as strong as they had been in the past. It shouldn't have been that close.

There are some mitigating factors though, and I understand that saying "countless" is obviously an overstatement. Larry Robinson refused to participate in the tournament, so that is one factor. Mike Bossy was hurt, as were Paul Reinhart (forgotten but great defenceman) and Doug Wilson. I think that Denis Potvin was hurt as well, or just didn't want to play. I think Tim Kerr was hurt. I can understand that.

Some omissions don't make sense though. In goal, Fuhr is perfectly fine. Hextall was a young goaltender who had just won the Vezina... also fine. Hrudey over Liut makes little sense, as Liut was much more experienced and had just finished a far better season (second for Vezina, third for Hart). If they wanted a young goaltender, Roy made more sense given that his work in the previous season and the post season before that was better than anything Hrudey had shown. Doug Crossman was a bizarre choice that looked like little more than Keenan wanting one of his own players. Essentially a second airing defencemen, he wasn't even the best Canadian defenceman on his team (McCrimmon). Normand Rochefort is another (though I liked his play in the series) who is confusing. He was a good player, but Canada had access to Al MacInnis and Scott Stevens, who had both emerged as young Norris type defencemen in the previous two seasons. Even a player like Green (or again, McCrimmon) would have made a lot more sense as a defensive type than Rochefort. I actually like the Patrick pick (not so popular at the time) and Hartsburg was fine, but not over Stevens and MacInnis.

The forwards trended toward grinders, like an NHL team, when that wasn't all that necessary. Canada's skill players were already going to be grittier than their Soviet counterparts, and that hockey was bound to be much less gritty than NHL hockey anyway. I'm not sure that gritty wingers like Claude Lemieux, Rick Tocchet and Kevin Dineen make sense over an elite, emerging player (who could play wing) in Yzerman - especially when Yzerman was already on the 1984 team in a complimentary role. Denis Savard was left at home, despite being one of the absolute best players of that era and someone who was well suited to less gritty international hockey. Canada also could have gone the route of another defensive forward like Carbonneau (who could have replaced Sutter, but that's not a big deal) or other, better wingers like Ciccarelli or possibly even a young Robitaille.

In any event, that team won, just like USA O24 might. Canada likely made it harder on itself though, just like USA O24 probably did.

 

[Gary Nylund]

The problem with the 1987 Canadian team is that it was constructed to be like an NHL team, where every team has a talent shortage. This team had Gretzky and Lemieux, both essentially in their primes, with prime Bourque and Coffey as a top pairing, playing with NHL refs on NHL sized ice, and it still came as close as possible to losing without actually losing. The Soviets were great, but they didn't have great goaltending and weren't as strong as they had been in the past. It shouldn't have been that close.

There are some mitigating factors though, and I understand that saying "countless" is obviously an overstatement. Larry Robinson refused to participate in the tournament, so that is one factor. Mike Bossy was hurt, as were Paul Reinhart (forgotten but great defenceman) and Doug Wilson. I think that Denis Potvin was hurt as well, or just didn't want to play. I think Tim Kerr was hurt. I can understand that.

Some omissions don't make sense though. In goal, Fuhr is perfectly fine. Hextall was a young goaltender who had just won the Vezina... also fine. Hrudey over Liut makes little sense, as Liut was much more experienced and had just finished a far better season (second for Vezina, third for Hart). If they wanted a young goaltender, Roy made more sense given that his work in the previous season and the post season before that was better than anything Hrudey had shown. Doug Crossman was a bizarre choice that looked like little more than Keenan wanting one of his own players. Essentially a second airing defencemen, he wasn't even the best Canadian defenceman on his team (McCrimmon). Normand Rochefort is another (though I liked his play in the series) who is confusing. He was a good player, but Canada had access to Al MacInnis and Scott Stevens, who had both emerged as young Norris type defencemen in the previous two seasons. Even a player like Green (or again, McCrimmon) would have made a lot more sense as a defensive type than Rochefort. I actually like the Patrick pick (not so popular at the time) and Hartsburg was fine, but not over Stevens and MacInnis.

The forwards trended toward grinders, like an NHL team, when that wasn't all that necessary. Canada's skill players were already going to be grittier than their Soviet counterparts, and that hockey was bound to be much less gritty than NHL hockey anyway. I'm not sure that gritty wingers like Claude Lemieux, Rick Tocchet and Kevin Dineen make sense over an elite, emerging player (who could play wing) in Yzerman - especially when Yzerman was already on the 1984 team in a complimentary role. Denis Savard was left at home, despite being one of the absolute best players of that era and someone who was well suited to less gritty international hockey. Canada also could have gone the route of another defensive forward like Carbonneau (who could have replaced Sutter, but that's not a big deal) or other, better wingers like Ciccarelli or possibly even a young Robitaille.

In any event, that team won, just like USA O24 might. Canada likely made it harder on itself though, just like USA O24 probably did.

Fair enough. I get where you're coming from and you're right, some of the picks were a bit surprising at the time. I guess I'm beyond questioning the selections because they didn't just win, they played IMO as well as any Team Canada has ever played and won. I do think you might not be giving the Soviets enough credit though when you say they came so close to losing and the Soviets weren't as strong as in the past etc. To me, both teams were incredible. You can slice and dice the lineups on paper, question the omissions of whoever and say the Soviets weren't so strong in goal and whatever else but what transpired on the ice was phenomenal hockey, the best I've ever seen and the level of play that was sustained over the 3 games was mind blowing. To me, that's a good argument for saying these were the best two National teams ever to take to the ice. I have DVD's of those games and re-watch them every few years, those are the only hockey games I have ever watched after the fact, to me they were that good.



Editing to add of some of the Team Canada 1987 picks were somewhat questionable, I don't think any were on Rob Zamuner level.

 

[JETZZZ]

The thing is, is maybe this tournament will be officiated more like a dead-puck-era playoff game than an olympic or world championship game. In that case, sacrificing a lot of high end talent for grit and physicality is the right way to go?

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

I mean kesself was horrible last olmpyics named best forward and led in scoring pshhh what a scrub ..... and all he did was lead pitts in points en route to a Stanley Cup, guy clearly has no heart and can't play in big games....
Smh **** burke and Co

 

[JackSlater]

Fair enough. I get where you're coming from and you're right, some of the picks were a bit surprising at the time. I guess I'm beyond questioning the selections because they didn't just win, they played IMO as well as any Team Canada has ever played and won. I do think you might not be giving the Soviets enough credit though when you say they came so close to losing and the Soviets weren't as strong as in the past etc. To me, both teams were incredible. You can slice and dice the lineups on paper, question the omissions of whoever and say the Soviets weren't so strong in goal and whatever else but what transpired on the ice was phenomenal hockey, the best I've ever seen and the level of play that was sustained over the 3 games was mind blowing. To me, that's a good argument for saying these were the best two National teams ever to take to the ice. I have DVD's of those games and re-watch them every few years, those are the only hockey games I have ever watched after the fact, to me they were that good.



Editing to add of some of the Team Canada 1987 picks were somewhat questionable, I don't think any were on Rob Zamuner level.

The games were tremendously entertaining, no question. There have been better editions of team Canada though, and editions of team Canada that played better, but that doesn't mean that 1987 was a bad team or anything. Similarly, team USA O24 is still quite a good team. Just isn't as good as it could have been.

Also, not an insult to say that the 1987 Soviet team wasn't as strong as it had been. The players on the green unit were at the end of their primes mostly, and Tretiak was gone. Still a great team, just not as strong as it had been before.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I'll say it again, USA Hockey overthought this one. There's enough talent to overcome the over-thinking but this is not as talented a team as it could have been.

 

[AgentBrodeur]

everyone has allot of good points here.

Faulk > Johnson

Kessel >>>>>> Dubinsky

Tyler Johnson >>> Dubinsky

period

Yes Johnson is HHUUGE as trump would say. But so is the ice. I dont see the grind game on this ice surface. I would keep the 4th line for that and thats it. Why are the fins doing so well? skate speed skate....then shoot!