View Single Post
Old
02-06-2013, 02:46 PM
  #896
86Habs
Registered User
 
86Habs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crabby Williams View Post
Can someone explain the fascination these "experts" have with Milan Lucic? His temper and foot speed would kill us. With the big ice, any physical advantage people think he would bring becomes even less of a factor...

To those saying Martin St. Louis should be there, I agree 100%. Why would we leave our most consistently elite winger at home? Very disappointed he didn't make it last time, and MSL will make damn sure he's there this time. I don't think I'm being a homer in saying he is the best Canadian winger in the game.

Perry has been disappointing, to say the least. I agree with Mr. Writer in that we should leave both him and Getzlaf home.

Kind of a pet peeve of mine, but why is Nash never held to any sort of offensive standard? The only guy who consistently doesn't perform and is considered a lock. I know he played well in Vancouver, but it seems like hes getting a free ride here...
I can't explain the Lucic nuthugging going on, unfortunately. I think what's happening is that Team Canada typically carries a banger/crasher up-front, sometimes with success (see Morrow in 2010), sometimes not (see Bertuzzi in 2006), so the so-called experts like to pencil in the best such forward on our 4th line. Obviously the key differentiator is the size of the ice surface, and while Lucic would be a viable option on the NHL-sized ice surface, he'd be a detriment on the larger international ice (for the reasons you pointed out).

Re: Nash - I've always been a supporter of his at international tournaments. The reasons: 1) natural winger, and can play either LW or RW; 2) great size and speed down the wing, which is invaluable especially on international ice; 3) versatility, in that he can play on any of the four forward lines and can effectively play either an offensive or defensive role (and looked great playing with Toews and Richards in a primarily defensive role in 2010); 5) can kill penalties or play the PP; 6) always raises his game internationally.

Overall, the (expected) coaching staff is also familiar with his game, and he essentially presents little to no downside risk as a forward selection - i.e., he's not going to hurt us. For me it comes down to the fact that while he's seen as an offensive player in the context of the NHL, he can bring more to the table than offensive production and gives the coaching staff the ability to balance-off the more defensive-oriented lines with a solid offensive threat.

86Habs is offline