View Single Post
10-31-2013, 09:04 PM
Kriss E
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 34,811
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Quagmier View Post
I'm going to play a little "devil's advocate" here:

1 - keep in mind that Team Canada also left Stamkos off the roster in 2010 to bring in some more experienced guys and won gold.

2 - In that same vein...5 defenseman on that 2010 team are still in the NHL and playing at a high level. Weber, Doughty and Keith are all locks, whereas Seabrook and Boyle are less certain. Assuming Pietrangelo is also a lock, and that Team Canada management keeps Seabrook under the guise of their "instant chemistry" thought process, there really isn't alot of empty space on that roster. That is also without discussing the whole LD/RD conundrum.

3 - While Boyle is getting older, he has played at a high level for a good team for a while now, and could assume a veteran role akin to Nieds and Pronger on that 2010 team. I wouldn't be surprised if Team Canada went with the vets from 2010 over more unproven upside guys like Subban, Duchene, Hall, etc. PK has proven that he has the talent to be among the game's elite, but its still fairly hard to get a read on his play from game to game and i have no doubt team canada would be very nervous about that.

4 - TC might also be concerned that PK will have trouble adjusting to a "lesser role" where he is asked to play a simlified, low minutes/low-risk game on the third pairing. This sort of sentiment get's echoed all the time about finding guys who are capable of accepting lesser roles they are used to on their own teams. Given the press PK has generated over the past few years about being a "larger than life" personality, its possible TC might view him as the type of player that would rebel against being put in a spot like that. The obvious rebuttal here, however, is to point to PK's progression with the WJC team, where he started as a 7th Dman and worked his way up to tournament all-star, Canada winning gold in all three years he was on the team.

5 - Team Canada, and most coaches/gms in hockey today are overly conservative, afraid of change/risk, and are generally interested in playing a style of hockey that minimizes risk. PK doesn't always play that style, and i think its pretty obvious in how Therrien has been using him that, despite the obviousness of his talent and tenacity, PK might not necessarily be a "coach's player".

With all of the above said...i think it's all BS and that Team Canada without PK Subban in its arsenal of weapons would be a worse team than with him. Being allowed to bring 8 dmen is EXACTLY why you would take a chance on someone like PK. Team Canada has a solid enough foundation in its D corps that it can and should be taking a chance on a talent like Subban. Bringing both Letang and Boyle would be a waste of a roster spot as both bring redundant qualities and are quite frankly, less effective than Subban at bringing offense from the D position.


Good blend of vets and youth. Good blend of offense and defense. Good mix of instant chemistry and all-world talent. I would also venture a guess that, if Subban makes the team as a 7th or 8th dman...he would play his way into the top 4 by the end of the tournament. Subban has been a big game player at both the World Juniors and the World Championships, as well as for the Habs in the playoffs. I have no doubt he would play his heart out for team canada in sochi either.
1- They won the Gold but they almost got screwed too.

2- If we believe the words of Yzerman, nobody was/is a lock. It all depends on the season.

3- Boyle was never as good as Nieds or Pronger, and he's declined some more. The point of keeping some older guys around is because they have experience. But a guy like Keith won 2 cups and a gold medal, that's a ton of experience. Weber was there as well, Doughty has a cup and Gold. They don't need to bring in an older guy. We have some younger guys that have the veteran experience.
Let's not forget PK has international experience, and also won the Gold where he was a very solid contributor.

4- That's BS. He had a lesser role last year and he won the Norris. PK has always been very humble and has never showed any signs of being some sort of problem player that can't adapt to whatever role he's given. Quite the opposite. How in God's name would PK come in with his head high thinking he owns this?? Makes no sense at all. He's not that type of player. Also, as you said, he's had no issues taking lesser roles and growing from them in his international junior days.

5- PK is not a risky player. Everybody makes mistakes. That's all it is.
There's one thing PK can do better than any of the other Dman too, he is the only one that can take control of a game by himself. If he's in the zone, and he wants to carry the puck, you will not take it away from him. He's that good. It's not something you often see from Dman. Yes, there are good offensive or two way Dmen, but you rarely see a Dman take full control of a game like PK has shown capable off.
His skating is also the best on the team. The kid brings so many good things that going back to say ''he's risky'' is just a very bad assessment of the player.

As you said, it's all BS. He deserves to be there, and I think he will be.

Kriss E is offline   Reply With Quote