HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   International Tournaments (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   84/85 US better than 84/85 Canada? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1319131)

doakacola* 01-09-2013 04:19 AM

84/85 US better than 84/85 Canada?
 
The talent available for the 2003-04 US junior Team was IMO better than Canada 's.
This might be the only time this has occurred. In fact the 1984 group of US players
is the best group of players ever produced in the US and rivals the 1985 Canada group.
Here is a Team USA 1984:

G - Howard - Mannino

D - Wisniewski - Stuart - Carle - Richmond - Smaby - Lundin - Gilroy

F - Kesler - Backes - Boyle - Parise - Booth - Eaves - Brown - Miller - Stirling - Moore - Weiner -
Parse

Hanji 01-09-2013 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowline (Post 57326551)
The talent available for the 2003-04 US junior Team was IMO better than Canada 's.
This might be the only time this has occurred. In fact the 1984 group of US players
is the best group of players ever produced in the US and rivals the 1985 Canada group.
Here is a Team USA 1984:

G - Howard - Mannino

D - Wisniewski - Stuart - Carle - Richmond - Smaby - Lundin - Gilroy

F - Kesler - Backes - Boyle - Parise - Booth - Eaves - Brown - Miller - Stirling - Moore - Weiner -
Parse

You can't judge these players as finished products. Many were vastly different players at junior level. The 1985 Canadians were better as juniors.

JackSlater 01-09-2013 08:35 PM

So the OP thinks that the 1984 US group rivals 1985 Canada?

1985 Canada:

Horton Bergeron Perry
Ladd Carter Getzlaf
Dawes Richards Stewart
MacArthur Zajac Fehr
Fraser

Phaneuf Weber
Burns Seabrook
Coburn Green
Quincey

Glass
Beauchemin

You know what, I think I might just go with the Canadian group here. When you take into account how good the players actually were at the time, the gap is even larger than it appears.

If you're talking about players eligible for the 2004 WJC, then we can add:

Nash, Eric Staal, Bouchard, Girardi, White, Campoli, Fleury, Ward and others.

If we're talking about the 2004 WJC, then we can add Crosby as well.

You could make a case that the 1984 US age group turned out better than 1984 Canada, but the assertion that USA had more talent available for the 2004 WJC is crazy.

willie 01-09-2013 10:26 PM

Your '85 Canada is missing Brian Elliott in net ( & I'd probably put Cedrick Desjardins as backup)

I'd also slot Purcell in there, as well as Raymond & Brouwer. My 25-man roster looks like this:

Horton - Getzlaf - Perry
Bergeron - Richards - Carter
Ladd - Zajac - Purcell
Raymond - Fraser - MacArthur
Brouwer - Richardson - Carcillo

Weber - Phaneuf
Seabrook - Burns
Green - Methot
Coburn - Quincey

Elliott - Desjardins

Either way, this lineup is MUCH stronger than the '84 USA team. They are not only deeper, they also have more high end talent, too. On Defense 1-7, Canada's blows the U.S. away. Up front, Canada has more game breakers and WAY better third/fourth line talent. The only area they might be weaker in its net but Elliott is arguably better than Howard.

Uncle Rotter 01-09-2013 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackSlater (Post 57370387)

You could make a case that the 1984 US age group turned out better than 1984

Yes you could:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv....cgi?year=1984

But the Canadian Class of 1985-borns was freakishly awesome:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv....cgi?year=1985

willie 01-10-2013 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter (Post 57378737)
Yes you could:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv....cgi?year=1984

But the Canadian Class of 1985-borns was freakishly awesome:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv....cgi?year=1985

Hmm. 84 versus 84 is pretty close.

Nash - Staal - Bouchard
Tambellini - Talbot - D. Jones
Paille - Brodziak - Clarkson
Eager - Brent - Prust
McLeod - Westgarth

Garrison - Girardi
White - Gorges
Campoli - Klein
O'Byrne - Ranger

Ward - Fleury - Harding

I'd prefer Canada's first line but the U.S. has the better depth up front. Defense is relatively close but you'd have to give Canada the edge with a bit more quality both on the front and back ends. Obviously Canada has a huge edge in net.

You can argue USA '84 versus Canada '84. USA '84 versus Canada '85 isn't even remotely close.

Xokkeu 01-10-2013 02:36 AM

The 1984/85 made up the core of the US Olympic team


Brown
Kesler
Parise
Backes
Callahan
Stastny
Pavelski


Suter


That's 8 of 23 players, over a third of the team. David Booth might have made the team as well if not for injury.

daver 01-10-2013 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xokkeu (Post 57383637)
The 1984/85 made up the core of the US Olympic team


Brown
Kesler
Parise
Backes
Callahan
Stastny
Pavelski


Suter


That's 8 of 23 players, over a third of the team. David Booth might have made the team as well if not for injury.

6 or 7 of 23 for the 85's for Team Canada. More impressive when you compare depth.

Xokkeu 01-10-2013 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daver (Post 57384569)
6 or 7 of 23 for the 85's for Team Canada. More impressive when you compare depth.

So basically we can say that that 2003 draft was so awesome it basically single handily dominated the 2010 Olympics. :amazed:

daver 01-10-2013 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xokkeu (Post 57399093)
So basically we can say that that 2003 draft was so awesome it basically single handily dominated the 2010 Olympics. :amazed:

No, having 6 or 7 players from the same draft make Team Canada is impressive enough. And more impressive than the 8 or so from the 2002 draft that made the US team.

Xokkeu 01-10-2013 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daver (Post 57400663)
No, having 6 or 7 players from the same draft make Team Canada is impressive enough. And more impressive than the 8 or so from the 2002 draft that made the US team.

I didn't realize you were looking to trash talk. :laugh:

daver 01-10-2013 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xokkeu (Post 57402099)
I didn't realize you were looking to trash talk. :laugh:

How am I trash talking?

Xokkeu 01-10-2013 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daver (Post 57404953)
How am I trash talking?

"... is impressive enough"

"More impressive"

And in response to the claim that the draft was impressive for both teams?
"No"

daver 01-10-2013 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xokkeu (Post 57405387)
"... is impressive enough"

"More impressive"

And in response to the claim that the draft was impressive for both teams?
"No"

I never said that 2002 US draft class wasn't impressive, I said 2003 Canada draft class was more impressive. That's what the OP asked.

JackSlater 01-10-2013 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xokkeu (Post 57405387)
"... is impressive enough"

"More impressive"

And in response to the claim that the draft was impressive for both teams?
"No"

Really though.

Anyway, the 1970 birth year for USA is probably better than it was for Canada. Better player depth for Canada, but nobody nearly as good as Modano and Roenick.

Uncle Rotter 01-10-2013 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackSlater (Post 57406645)
Really though.

Anyway, the 1970 birth year for USA is probably better than it was for Canada. Better player depth for Canada, but nobody nearly as good as Modano and Roenick.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/friv....cgi?year=1970

AmericanDream 01-10-2013 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Rotter (Post 57417323)

the 1970 birth year was pretty epic for the US and it wasnt even close between the US and Canada...that was a solid group of guys from the 91 and 96 World Cup teams...

Roenick, Modano, Guerin, and Amonte....game over man!

Big Phil 01-10-2013 09:17 PM

Canada still wins this one. That 2003 draft was insane and Canada had easily the best players in there. The US still had a decent 2002 draft, but when you combine the two it is Canada here clearly still.

daver 01-11-2013 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackSlater (Post 57406645)
Really though.

Reread the previous posts and tell me where I was trash talking. Seems like you and the other poster are looking for evidence of "Canadian arrogance".

The fact that 8 of the 23 US 2010 OG team members were from the 2002 draft class was presented as evidence that they rival the 2003 Canadian draft class. I stated that 6 or 7 from the 2003 draft class made Team Canada in 2010 which is more impressive given the "on-paper" depth at each position.

doakacola* 01-11-2013 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmericanDream (Post 57420075)
the 1970 birth year was pretty epic for the US and it wasnt even close between the US and Canada...that was a solid group of guys from the 91 and 96 World Cup teams...

Roenick, Modano, Guerin, and Amonte....game over man!

They actually played a 3 game set as U - 18 in 1988. They each won one and tied the 3 rd game
.
However I don't think Guerin played. Brind'Amour and Barnes were the Canada guns, while Roenick
dominated.

JackSlater 01-11-2013 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daver (Post 57431147)
Reread the previous posts and tell me where I was trash talking. Seems like you and the other poster are looking for evidence of "Canadian arrogance".

The fact that 8 of the 23 US 2010 OG team members were from the 2002 draft class was presented as evidence that they rival the 2003 Canadian draft class. I stated that 6 or 7 from the 2003 draft class made Team Canada in 2010 which is more impressive given the "on-paper" depth at each position.

Actually I do not believe that your posts represent Canada. Instead they were mainly the unnecessary commentary of a single poster.

It was noted that 8 members of the 2002 draft class represented USA at the Olympics. It was not used as evidence that it was a superior age group to Canada's following age group, though for some reason you assumed this and took some umbridge at the thought. I do not believe anyone other than possibly the OP disagrees with you. Xokkeu was simply noting how strong that period was for both USA and Canada.

AmericanDream 01-11-2013 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bowline (Post 57433909)
They actually played a 3 game set as U - 18 in 1988. They each won one and tied the 3 rd game
.
However I don't think Guerin played. Brind'Amour and Barnes were the Canada guns, while Roenick
dominated.

when you look at NHL success the 70 birth year for the US is way ahead of Canada, and thats what I meant by that. Even the collection of dmen for the US did more as a group than Canada did : Carney, Bylsma, Hedican, Hill, Tamer, Zmolek, etc all had pretty long productive NHL careers. Nothing earth shattering, but a solid group of core dmen that had some solid years in the NHL.


It is always a close battle between these two countries every single year at the junior level, outside of maybe a few years over the past 20 years, these two teams are usually pretty close in terms of talent though the outcome has favored Canada much more....but as of late that is changing :handclap: :nod:

AmericanDream 01-11-2013 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackSlater (Post 57406645)
Really though.

Anyway, the 1970 birth year for USA is probably better than it was for Canada. Better player depth for Canada, but nobody nearly as good as Modano and Roenick.

if you look back a year to the 69 birth year, I think the US gets spanked pretty bad there...

great year for Canada as they had : Sakic, Desjardins, Turgeon, Shanahan, Cassels, Audette, Richardson, Blake, etc..

the US only had : Leclair, Schnieder, McEachern, Donato, Sacco, and a few other C listers... that year was a big year for Canada



the 71' birth year was pretty bad for both countries as Canada really didnt have much highend players as Ricci might have been the best...well I guess Nedved was Canadian as well..and Primeau was there as well, so that would be the top 3 imo..and then a whole lot of decent to solid guys but nothing great.. Adam Foote was their best dman taken with Patrice Brisebois and Sean O'Donnell next...


the US had Conroy, Weight, and Smolinski....but the drop off between those 3 and the next group of Bill Lindsay, Trent Klatt, Derek Plante, Ted Drury, etc was pretty wide in talent. The US had Aaron Miller and Ken Klee for defense...that is pretty bad.

daver 01-11-2013 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackSlater (Post 57435779)
Actually I do not believe that your posts represent Canada. Instead they were mainly the unnecessary commentary of a single poster.

It was noted that 8 members of the 2002 draft class represented USA at the Olympics. It was not used as evidence that it was a superior age group to Canada's following age group, though for some reason you assumed this and took some umbridge at the thought. I do not believe anyone other than possibly the OP disagrees with you. Xokkeu was simply noting how strong that period was for both USA and Canada.

I don't see where Xokkeu was giving props to Canada. His original post was only about the 8 members of the US team in a thread where the OP is offering an opinion for debate. Don't think it's much of a stretch to assume he offering the 8 member comment as evidence to back up the OP's assertion. If he wants to discuss the strength of 2002 draft class without drawing comparisons he should start a new thread.

JackSlater 01-11-2013 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daver (Post 57437753)
I don't see where Xokkeu was giving props to Canada. His original post was only about the 8 members of the US team in a thread where the OP is offering an opinion for debate. Don't think it's much of a stretch to assume he offering the 8 member comment as evidence to back up the OP's assertion. If he wants to discuss the strength of 2002 draft class without drawing comparisons he should start a new thread.

I do think it's a stretch. If he wanted to say that the age group was better, he could have. He even quoted a post by you saying that the Canadian group was better, and did not disagree with your statement in his response. From this point on though I will let the poster speak for their own posts. The only way someone would agree with the initial assertion is if the person knew nothing of hockey, or they had not really looked at the topic at all.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:29 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.