View Single Post
02-14-2013, 09:26 AM
Registered User
JackSlater's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,945
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
Personally I see your point and agree with you about USA not getting better goaltending. I think that's quite a lofty and illogical goal however it would be nice.

In terms of value on the Canadian team, I guess my point was basically that the argument that better talent means a better team. Personally I think players like Iggy, Nieds and Pronger in that example were an important part. Iggy's was undeniable as his great assist for the game winner was spectacular. However I was merely pointing out that Canada is looking to challenge, they are looking to defend the Gold which to me, is much more difficult. Don't get me wrong though, I think Tavares, Stamkos, and the like are going to become amazing players in the next Olympics because at that point, they will be awesome veterans. Classy players that are young usually continue that trend. I guess what I'm saying here is we don't know what to expect out of them in Olympic hockey and they are both still pretty young. In 2018 and probably 2022 I think their chances are better.
I'm sure that the vets has an important role in 2010, but my belief is that the guys that won last time, Crosby, Weber, Staal, Nash and others can provide enough leadership and experience. St. Louis may even be included as another veteran presence.

Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
Like you stated, there's always room for improvement but I LOATHE the argument that many Canadians(not necessarily yourself but...) argue that the last Canadian team wasn't very good or that they were undertalented. They won the freakin gold man so I hate that argument. I hated then and I hate it now. A team wins the gold and as far as I'm concerned they were the best team and for all intents and purposes shouldn't be give negative marks for winning the gold which was the point I was making.
I am not arguing that the last team was bad, and it certainly wasn't lacking in talent. For whatever reason, they did not gel particularly well last time. Crosby was pretty poor, as was his line in general, and the Sharks line seemingly regressed. Pronger was pretty poor, Seabrook was useless and Boyle was hit or miss. Brodeur sucked and Luongo was only adequate. The 2014 team should be similarly talented, and if gelling and goaltender are somewhat random in a short tournament I see plenty of reason to think this team has a good chance of being better.

Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
I guess the real point here is unless Canada wins the gold again, there's no way you can say this next team will be better. You can't get better than that. You can be equal to or greater than but only if you win the Gold.
I disagree completely. There is far too much randomness in hockey, and especially a one game elimination tournament, to say that the results always indicate the best team. There is also the issue of the 2014 tournament featuring vastly different teams than 2010, so comparisons are skewed there as well. Canada can't achieve a better result than 2010, but they can definitely be better. Even if they lose, they can still be a better team.

Originally Posted by Cory Trevor View Post
And I'm sorry if this is being construed as me trolling the Canadian thread. I just knew before that the Canadians were going to win the last Olympics when I saw the team Stevie Y put together. Maybe I'm just a bit jealous and really proud of my boys' finish last time. I'd love to see us play against each other again. Our matchups are either complete blowouts or I have a heart attack.
You're clearly not trolling. Dissenting opinions are valuable and clearly you have put a fair amount of thought into yours. It would be awesome to see another showdown between NA in Russia. Hopefully the gold medal game once again.

JackSlater is offline