GDT: Sochi Part 2: Dis Gon Be Gud

[nobuddy]

I'm not even going to waste my time going into detail for every ridiculous thing you said. What a joke of a post.

Yeah facts (such as who is ACTUALLY winning tournaments that most accurately reflect the future) can be hard to argue against.

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

Yeah facts (such as who is ACTUALLY winning tournaments that most accurately reflect the future) can be hard to argue against.

Haha oh keep enjoying your u18 wins. Canada has never typically done well at that tournament. Ever take a look at what time of the year it's played at? Ever hear of the CHL?

 

[nobuddy]

You were not right. Unless you have an alternative reality where you can plug other player into roles and see the outcome, it's nothing but an opinion. The fact is, Team Canada won with Kunitz. Everything else is pure speculation. Team Canada's choices were right, plain and simple, whether you like them or not.



Maybe, but do you not also see that if they are weaker defensively, they would increase the likelihood that they would have given up more goals also? Heck, maybe not even making it past Russia? Or how Team USA beat the Czech's by basically using the "shutdown line" against Jagr and without that line, the outcome might have changed? etc.... (all speculation)

IMO, Team Canada put together an outstanding defensive team for this tournament and had just enough offense to win it. Good strategy and IMO, adding a couple more guys to team USA wouldn't have changed it.

I absolutely was right. I said Kunitz wouldn't score as those who supported his inclusion expected him to. That's all I said. I did NOT, at any point, say Canada bringing Kunitz would prevent them from winning gold. He scored one point in six games and it was an entirely irrelevant point. I'm fairly certain that Yzerman and Co. envisioned him scoring more than one point.

 

[nobuddy]

Haha oh keep enjoying your u18 wins. Canada has never typically done well at that tournament. Ever take a look at what time of the year it's played at? Ever hear of the CHL?

When was the last time Canada won gold at the U20s? How is the mighty CHL faring in that tournament? What is your excuse there?

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

When was the last time Canada won gold at the U20s? How is the mighty CHL faring in that tournament? What is your excuse there?

I'm not going to try to make excuses. They were beat by better teams. Haven't always agreed with the team they bring hut that's Canada and I will support them. Not sure why we're even talking about junior hockey in an Olympic thread. You're really reaching and making petty arguments. Olympics is the only best on best tournament in the works and we just won our second in a row. Keep talking u-18s I'd you want, I'm done with you.

 

[nobuddy]

I'm not going to try to make excuses. They were beat by better teams. Haven't always agreed with the team they bring hut that's Canada and I will support them.

Thank you for making my point. It's not like Canada's going to have this core forever. One day, the kids that are losing at the WJCs will be the teams losing at the Olympics.

The same way these kids who won gold for Canada at the WJCs before are now the ones winning gold for them at the Olympics.

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

Thank you for making my point. It's not like Canada's going to have this core forever. One day, the kids that are losing at the WJCs will be the teams losing at the Olympics.

Pretty big assumption there.

Good argument.

 

[nobuddy]

Pretty big assumption there.

Good argument.

Way to ignore the last sentence where I provide historical evidence to support this assumption!

 

[What the Faulk]

To be honest, Canada was the best team in this tournament. I don't think it's revisionist history to say that. They were dominating chances in every game, their goals were just not falling. People need to realize that hockey is a game played on ice with weird sticks and oddly shaped pucks. Bad/good bounces are going to happen, and they can decide a game. That's what I don't get about people who refuse to acknowledge "advanced" statistics. So much goes into the game, that luck is inevitable. You can't just count on raw numbers. So why not look at things deeper?

In the US game, a puck could have kicked off Weber and gotten past Price, and we'd be in OT. The 1-0 win was not indicative of just how much Canada dominated that game and mitigated our chances.

Further, you can take bad players and still win since their impact is only a fraction of the game, and if they're at least treading water, then that impact is minimized. Kunitz was a bad choice, but Canada was so good that they were still a leg up on the competition. You probably could have stuck Manny Malhotra on that team and they still would have had a good chance at winning.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Further, you can take bad players and still win since their impact is only a fraction of the game, and if they're at least treading water, then that impact is minimized. Kunitz was a bad choice, but Canada was so good that they were still a leg up on the competition. You probably could have stuck Manny Malhotra on that team and they still would have had a good chance at winning.

I still don't agree he was a bad choice. If he was such a bad choice, then in the critical medal round games, he wouldn't have been getting the key ice time he was from an excellent coach (who isn't his coach) over the likes of Duchene, St. Louis, Nash and Sharp. Those guys are all arguably better scorers/more skilled than Kunitz, yet Babcock continued to trust Kunitz out there in critical games over those guys. Whether it was because of his familiarity with Crosby or because he has a better overall game, or all of the above, the coach knew he was a better choice. Can't see how one could argue that there were better choices over him when 4 other forwards on the team weren't deemed as good of a choice by the coach when it mattered most.

As we learned in this Olympics, it wasn't about scoring on the big ice, it was about playing a tough team defensive game and capitalizing on chances when it mattered. For that style of game, Kunitz was definitely a good choice.

 

[nobuddy]

I still don't agree he was a bad choice. If he was such a bad choice, then in the critical medal round games, he wouldn't have been getting the key ice time he was from an excellent coach (who isn't his coach) over the likes of Duchene, St. Louis, Nash and Sharp. Those guys are all arguably better scorers/more skilled than Kunitz, yet Babcock continued to trust Kunitz out there in critical games over those guys. Whether it was because of his familiarity with Crosby or because he has a better overall game, or all of the above, the coach knew he was a better choice. Can't see how one could argue that there were better choices over him when 4 other forwards on the team weren't deemed as good of a choice by the coach when it mattered most.

Are you willing to apply the same logic to Orpik/Bylsma?

 

[DaveG]

Thank you for making my point. It's not like Canada's going to have this core forever. One day, the kids that are losing at the WJCs will be the teams losing at the Olympics.

The same way these kids who won gold for Canada at the WJCs before are now the ones winning gold for them at the Olympics.

Here's another way to look at it though:

It's MUCH easier to win a U-18 and U-20 team based purely around speed, and the US teams the past few years may have very well been the fastest teams out there at that level. In fact I'd flat out say there's no probably about it on a team by team basis, though on an individual level there's always going to be total burners like Kapanen somewhere.

But here's the thing, where's the US production in the NHL based off what we saw in the U-18s and U-20s the past few years. Faulk, McDonagh, and Carlson are great but they're not Doughty, Subban, or Pietrangelo. And defense is our strong point as a country developmentally. When it comes to forwards it's not even close, and until we get better at developing skill and start almost ignoring results at a youth level in this country it won't be getting better any time soon. The only place we have an edge is in net.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I'm fairly certain that Yzerman and Co. envisioned him scoring more than one point.

Look at the guys who got playing time when it counted. It was the guys who all had solid 2-way games. I suspect Team Canada thought most of the team would score more than they did (Crosby only had 1 goal), but I can state with confidence that they selected guys that could still contribute even if they weren't scoring.

St. Louis, Nash, Duchene, and Sharp all got minimal time when it counted. Why, because Babcock thought Kunitz was a better choice to be out there in difficult situations. I still believe Kunitz was a good choice.

People like to look at all the sexy scoring stats and pick teams based on that but nations pick players that will make the best team. TC ended up picking at team that was all but impossible to score against and used that to win gold. They made the right choices, plain and simple.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Are you willing to apply the same logic to Orpik/Bylsma?

Are you willing to acknowledge that Blysma was Orpik's coach so had a level of comfort (and obvious bias) with him where-as Babcock is not Kunitz's coach and has no such bias?

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

Way to ignore the last sentence where I provide historical evidence to support this assumption!

So because this group won as juniors and are winning now that means the group losing now will forever be lovers on the international stage?

That's not evidence.

Anyway I'm done with this. I've gotta go work.

 

[nobuddy]

Look at the guys who got playing time when it counted. It was the guys who all had solid 2-way games. I suspect Team Canada thought most of the team would score more than they did (Crosby only had 1 goal), but I can state with confidence that they selected guys that could still contribute even if they weren't scoring.

St. Louis, Nash, Duchene, and Sharp all got minimal time when it counted. Why, because Babcock thought Kunitz was a better choice to be out there in difficult situations. I still believe Kunitz was a good choice.

People like to look at all the sexy scoring stats and pick teams based on that but nations pick players that will make the best team. TC ended up picking at team that was all but impossible to score against and used that to win gold. They made the right choices, plain and simple.

Every consider that they are all but impossible to score against because they have Carey Price in net, and Drew Doughty, Shea Weber, Duncan Keith, Alex Pietrangelo, ME Vlasic, etc. on the blue line... and NOT because Chris Kunitz played 13 minutes a night?

 

[What the Faulk]

Yeah I'm not sure Babcock trusting Kunitz makes the argument that he was a good choice. If they were going for guys who could contribute when they weren't scoring, why not one of the Staals? Why not Thornton? Why not a number of other players who play better defense and score more when not babysat by Crosby?

Again, because they won gold does not mean that they optimized their lineup. It's a team sport. It's possible to win based on Crosby scoring 9 goals, or Price standing on his head, or luck. If the US fluked their way to a win, we all would be questioning the Kunitz inclusion even harder. But because they didn't, we're not. That doesn't mean he was a good choice. That's just being results-oriented. He wasn't the best choice before, during, or after Sochi.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

C'mon, you have better hockey sense than that as you know defense is a team game. I didn't say it was strictly because of Kunitz. The forwards, as a group, were excellent defensively for TC. They were winning battles to pucks, not getting caught deep, interrupting play in the neutral zone, etc.. The guys who got playing time as a whole when it counted were guys that had decent - very good 2 way games. Crosby, Bergeron, Kunitz, Getzlaf, Marleu, Carter, Toews, etc.

The guys that rode the pine? Offensive guys who aren't as good defensively. Duchene, St. Louis, Nash, etc..

Again, for the style of game TC played, Kunitz was a good fit. Can't see how you can even argue that.

 

[Sens1Canes2]

According to you. People who do this, you know, for a living, they think differently.

 

[nobuddy]

Here's another way to look at it though:

It's MUCH easier to win a U-18 and U-20 team based purely around speed, and the US teams the past few years may have very well been the fastest teams out there at that level. In fact I'd flat out say there's no probably about it on a team by team basis, though on an individual level there's always going to be total burners like Kapanen somewhere.

But here's the thing, where's the US production in the NHL based off what we saw in the U-18s and U-20s the past few years. Faulk, McDonagh, and Carlson are great but they're not Doughty, Subban, or Pietrangelo. And defense is our strong point as a country developmentally. When it comes to forwards it's not even close, and until we get better at developing skill and start almost ignoring results at a youth level in this country it won't be getting better any time soon. The only place we have an edge is in net.

The gap is closing. The USNTDP was started in 1996. We're JUST NOW starting to see the fruits of all that.

We've definitely produced better defensemen recently.

Since the 2010 draft: Faulk, Fowler, Trouba, Jones, McCoshen, Santini. That's ignoring that we still have guys like Carlson, Bogosian, McDonagh, Shattenkirk, etc. still developing. Haniflin in the wings as well. I think Trouba and Jones are guys that will reach that Subban, Doughty, Pietrangelo level.

Up front, things are getting a lot better too. Kane, JVR, Kessel, Ryan, Parise, Pacioretty, Okposo, Kesler, and Pavelski is a fantastic place to start. We've got guys like Galchenyuk, Eichel, Kreider, Stepan, Coyle, Etem, Bjugstad, Bennett, Saad, Gaudreau, Trocheck, Grimaldi.

I see Galchenyuk and Eichel developing into the type of top flight centers we need to compete on the Olympic stage.

We're not as deep as Canada. We may never be, but that doesn't really matter. To win Olympic gold you just need your 25 to be close to their 25.

Something like:

JVR-Galchenyuk-Kessel
Pacioretty-Eichel-Kane
Parise-Kesler-Pavelski
Kreider-Stepan-Ryan
Bjugstad-Okposo

McDonagh-Faulk
Jones-Trouba
Suter-Fowler
Carlson-Bogosian

Quick
Gibson
Schneider

COULD certainly be in the same ballpark as what Canada ices in 2018.

 

[What the Faulk]

According to you. People who do this, you know, for a living, they think differently.

People who do this for a living included Brooks Orpik on the US team. People who do this for a living picked a roster based on dreams. People who do this for a living paid Chad LaRose to play hockey for 7 years.

People who do this for a living are not infallible.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

But because they didn't, we're not. That doesn't mean he was a good choice. That's just being results-oriented. He wasn't the best choice before, during, or after Sochi.

So it's ok to use results oriented argument in the case of Team USA, but not for Team Canada? I guess that's the beauty of this type of discussion is you can always say either "see, they lost so it was the wrong pick" or "Yeah, but they still would have won without him".

Again, I'll disagree. I thought at the time and still think Kunitz was a decent choice. You make a valid point though and I not have complained if it was Staal, or Thornton or someone else with a solid 2 way game instead of him. The separation isn't enough to argue about, honestly. When it gets down to the last few guys, valid arguments can easily be made for all of them. If it was a strictly offensive guy (like a Skinner) who isn't good defensively, I would have thought that was a bad pick.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

People who do this for a living are not infallible.

They aren't, but when they succeed in their goals, it lends a lot more credence to the decisions they make. And when a respected coach continues to give him minutes over other "skilled" forward on the team, that's enough for me.

Everyone is busting on Orpik (which I have no issue with) and complaining about who was not there. How about the fact that the best players for USA didn't show up when it counted? That's the real issue IMO.

 

[What the Faulk]

So it's ok to use results oriented argument in the case of Team USA, but not for Team Canada? I guess that's the beauty of this type of discussion is you can always say either "see, they lost so it was the wrong pick" or "Yeah, but they still would have won without him".

What part of Team USA? I think Orpik was a terrible choice before and after, but how Bylsma used him was just ridiculous.

Again, I'll disagree. I thought at the time and still think Kunitz was a decent choice. You make a valid point though and I not have complained if it was Staal, or Thornton or someone else with a solid 2 way game instead of him. The separation isn't enough to argue about, honestly. When it gets down to the last few guys, valid arguments can easily be made for all of them. If it was a strictly offensive guy (like a Skinner) who isn't good defensively, I would have thought that was a bad pick.

To be honest, that's what it really comes down to. Canada is so stacked that including a Kuntiz, while not the best choice, probably ultimately doesn't make a huge difference (and didn't, as they won gold). This isn't a leaving Semin off Russia thing where the dropoff in talent is huge. Thornton or a Staal would probably be the better choice, but if you're debating the difference between an A+ and a B+ in a team full of A+'s, you're probably going to be okay.

Everyone is busting on Orpik (which I have no issue with) and complaining about who was not there. How about the fact that the best players for USA didn't show up when it counted? That's the real issue IMO.

IMO, Bylsma is the most blameworthy here. He was a given a pretty solid team, Orpik or not, and didn't use them correctly. Adam Gretz had a pretty good article about it yesterday, and, of all people, so did Greg Wyshnyski.

 

[nobuddy]

Maybe taking Ryan, Yandle and Byfuglien wouldn't have made any real difference. Maybe Canada would have still steamrolled them (quite possible -- that Canadian team is a machine) and Finland, led by an incredible performance from the ageless Teemu Selanne, would have still ended up taking Bronze. Maybe the United States would have still come out flat in both games.

But wouldn't they have at least given themselves a better chance? Don't you at least owe it to yourself to take your best players and give yourself your best possible chance of winning? Of course you do. And that is where Team USA failed before the tournament even began.

Given the thought process behind the roster and the way the team ended up finishing, failing to score a single goal in the two biggest games, that should be beyond frustrating. And a pretty big wakeup call.

Pretty much sums it up.