View Single Post
Old
12-07-2012, 01:46 PM
  #57
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyQuil View Post
It's kind of an interesting question.

The easy answer is that they would get destroyed.

Time and time again, Junior-aged hockey players comment on the sheer difference in speed and physicality at the NHL level.

It takes them time to get used to the pace of the game.

At the beginning of an NHL season, sure.

But after 60 games of NHL play, would the team of national-calibre juniors be competitive? Enough to win games?

Probably, I'd think.
After 60 games playing against NHLers, how much of this imaginary junior squad do we reckon is still playing healthy (i.e. not completely broken from playing against physically developed men who aren't at a disadvantage when it comes to size/speed/agility)? I don't think a junior team would last long enough to come up with enough answers to solve even the "worst" NHL team, personally. Even played on a more skilled than physical level, the gap and learning curve is huge, and part of why even the most highly regarded prospects rarely crack NHL rosters while still junior-aged.

I mean, let's look at the last gold medal winning Team Canada. For every Tavares, Eberle, Subban, and Pietrangelo there's a Hodgson, Hickey, Esposito, and Boychuk who have yet to crack the NHL full-time after four more years of pro development! And how confident would that group be right now facing an NHL team (especially with Pickard and Tokarski between the pipes), let alone with the 19/20 year old versions of them instead? The deck is just stacked too heavily against even the best WJC squad, making threads like this interesting to ponder when high, but not worth much sober consideration.

Ohashi_Jouzu is online now