HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Leagues > Canadian Junior Hockey > OHL

u17 camp

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-02-2013, 09:18 PM
  #51
BigBuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHLFan8771 View Post
Quick question. Will the players from the u-17 team be back with their teams by this Friday?
They could be back for Friday's games as they lost tonight and their last game is Thursday at 1:30 in the 5th place game.

BigBuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 09:23 PM
  #52
OSA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 81
vCash: 500
Well, as hard as it is to believe, Team Ontario will not be playing for a medal this year.

Hats off to the Quebec goaltender, he played really well. That being said there was a lot of sloppy play from Team Ontario tonight as well as some selfish and costly penalties. There is so much talent on that roster but when adversity struck, it seemed that far too many players were looking for someone else to step up and bail the team out.

McDavid played well as usual. Ho-Sang seemed to generate some scoring chances in the first half of the game but unfortunately his play didn't carry through. Forgive me for singling him out, but I thought Roland McKeown was terrible. I only bring him up specifically because I was expecting so much more from him. His poor puck control and some questionable decisions wasted far too many good scoring opportunities. I can only assume that his shoulder is still not 100%. While I bring up McKeown because I feel more should be expected from him, too many players lacked precision in their game tonight and it cost the team dearly.

I think we will look back at the roster for this team and wonder how on earth they didn't go undefeated, destroying teams en route to the gold medal.

OSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 10:57 PM
  #53
Garyboy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,540
vCash: 500
Shocking result.

Garyboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 11:05 PM
  #54
mapleleaf979
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBuck View Post
They could be back for Friday's games as they lost tonight and their last game is Thursday at 1:30 in the 5th place game.
I spoke to soon obviously, assuming they would get to the Gold medal game. They must be devastated. Im shocked. I assumed it was gold all the way. Thats the heartache and beauty of hockey, u never know.

mapleleaf979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 08:21 AM
  #55
eye for hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 32
vCash: 500
Also shocked , Team Ontario had its chances, too many foolish penalties and great play by Quebec goalie.

eye for hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:21 AM
  #56
Arsenault
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Sure this was a solid team with rock solid players but the problem was its depth. If we are to win this tournament and become the dominant force that we should be; Hockey Canada has got to start taking the best players available at that particular time, independent of where they were drafted last April. How can you expect kids that have been "riding the pine" at the OHL level for the last four months step in and compete at this level. Would have been better off filling the bottom spots with role players that might not have necessarily been 1st rounders' or even Tier 1/2 player that are actually playing a regular shift in their league.

Arsenault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:32 AM
  #57
BigBuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenault View Post
Sure this was a solid team with rock solid players but the problem was its depth. If we are to win this tournament and become the dominant force that we should be; Hockey Canada has got to start taking the best players available at that particular time, independent of where they were drafted last April. How can you expect kids that have been "riding the pine" at the OHL level for the last four months step in and compete at this level. Would have been better off filling the bottom spots with role players that might not have necessarily been 1st rounders' or even Tier 1/2 player that are actually playing a regular shift in their league.
Or Maybe they should get a better coaching staff. The last half of the game they went with 6 forwards and 3 maybe 4 defence and they ran out of gas. Thought they would have learned after the loss to the U.S. game.

BigBuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:38 AM
  #58
Arsenault
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBuck View Post
Or Maybe they should get a better coaching staff. The last half of the game they went with 6 forwards and 3 maybe 4 defence and they ran out of gas. Thought they would have learned after the loss to the U.S. game.
As I said before depth was there problem, hence why the coaching staff had to go down to 6 Forward and 4 Defence.

Arsenault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 10:49 AM
  #59
mapleleaf979
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBuck View Post
Or Maybe they should get a better coaching staff. The last half of the game they went with 6 forwards and 3 maybe 4 defence and they ran out of gas. Thought they would have learned after the loss to the U.S. game.
Very well said. The short bench was a mistake. The coaching was terrible. Even in a 8-1 game a few days ago, they were running there first PP unit. The US game the bench was too short when things got close. I think they could have had 4 lines running most of the game, wearing down other teams.

mapleleaf979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 11:44 AM
  #60
Luvtowatch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arsenault View Post
As I said before depth was there problem, hence why the coaching staff had to go down to 6 Forward and 4 Defence.
The depth was fine. There was balanced scoring in the other games. McDavid + Bennett didn't get a point in one of the blow outs. They played the crap out of the same 5 guys and filled in with 5 more. The pp was on for a full 2 min every time and did nothing, Ekblad almost never left the ice. Maybe should have mixed it up a bit? Maybe put McDavid with a couple of other wingers? Nothing wrong with MDC or McCann etc.

Luvtowatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 12:30 PM
  #61
Section19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sudbury, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 196
vCash: 500
I wasn't able to catch any of the games but I noticed that Wolves defenseman Conor Cummins didn't get onto the scoresheet in any of the games.

Did he even dress at all in the tournament? Looking at Ontario's roster, I'm sure he was low on the depth chart.

Section19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 12:35 PM
  #62
Luvtowatch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Section19 View Post
I wasn't able to catch any of the games but I noticed that Wolves defenseman Conor Cummins didn't get onto the scoresheet in any of the games.

Did he even dress at all in the tournament? Looking at Ontario's roster, I'm sure he was low on the depth chart.
He played. Got decent icetime.

Luvtowatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 06:56 PM
  #63
ottsabrefan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: kanata, ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OSA View Post
McDavid played well as usual. Ho-Sang seemed to generate some scoring chances in the first half of the game but unfortunately his play didn't carry through. Forgive me for singling him out, but I thought Roland McKeown was terrible. I only bring him up specifically because I was expecting so much more from him. His poor puck control and some questionable decisions wasted far too many good scoring opportunities. I can only assume that his shoulder is still not 100%. While I bring up McKeown because I feel more should be expected from him, too many players lacked precision in their game tonight and it cost the team dearly.
I'm not really sure how McKeown is your main target in a 2-1 loss. You realize he is a defenceman, right? And his primary goal is to keep the puck out of his net, rather than score goals, which based on the 2 goals against he succeeded. Furthermore, I'm not sure how you can say McDavid played well, when he is a forward and your big gun, who had ZERO points when you needed him the most.

ottsabrefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 08:43 PM
  #64
OSA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 81
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottsabrefan View Post
I'm not really sure how McKeown is your main target in a 2-1 loss. You realize he is a defenceman, right? And his primary goal is to keep the puck out of his net, rather than score goals, which based on the 2 goals against he succeeded. Furthermore, I'm not sure how you can say McDavid played well, when he is a forward and your big gun, who had ZERO points when you needed him the most.

Did you watch the game??

If you know McKeown, you'd know that he is a catalyst for the offense (especially on the PP). I'm a really big fan of his. I think he will be an excellent NHLer one day. So, I was quite surprised at how poorly he played given what we should expect from him. Like I said, I would assume his shoulder is still bothering him.

McDavid can't do it all himself. Other players need to step up as well and that team was loaded with talented players that could have/should have done so. Aside from the untimely penalty in the 3rd, McDavid played well in spite of the fact that he didn't make the score sheet. If you really watched you would have determined that as well.

OSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:07 PM
  #65
ottsabrefan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: kanata, ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OSA View Post
Did you watch the game??

If you know McKeown, you'd know that he is a catalyst for the offense (especially on the PP). I'm a really big fan of his. I think he will be an excellent NHLer one day. So, I was quite surprised at how poorly he played given what we should expect from him. Like I said, I would assume his shoulder is still bothering him.

McDavid can't do it all himself. Other players need to step up as well and that team was loaded with talented players that could have/should have done so. Aside from the untimely penalty in the 3rd, McDavid played well in spite of the fact that he didn't make the score sheet. If you really watched you would have determined that as well.
That's pretty funny, when he has Bennett and Watson as his linemates. The fact is he is their star player and he failed to come through when it mattered. Scoring chances are nice and his flash is great but they needed goals and he didn't deliver.

I don't mean to pick on McDavid, the rest of the offence didn't come through. It just boggles my mind when you pinpoint McKeown and expect him to be the one running the offence and getting them on track. Maybe I watch too many OHL games, but you shouldn't be blaming the Dman when the offence sucks.

ottsabrefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:18 PM
  #66
OSA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 81
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottsabrefan View Post
That's pretty funny, when he has Bennett and Watson as his linemates. The fact is he is their star player and he failed to come through when it mattered. Scoring chances are nice and his flash is great but they needed goals and he didn't deliver.

I don't mean to pick on McDavid, the rest of the offence didn't come through. It just boggles my mind when you pinpoint McKeown and expect him to be the one running the offence and getting them on track. Maybe I watch too many OHL games, but you shouldn't be blaming the Dman when the offence sucks.

Did you watch the game?

OSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 09:34 PM
  #67
BigBuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OSA View Post
Did you watch the game?
I did watch the games and the coaching was terrible. This team had enough good players to roll 4 lines and 6 D, yet he did not he used 6 forwards and 3-4 D. To blame Mckeown is brutal remember Ekblad was ES last year.

BigBuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:16 PM
  #68
OSA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 81
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBuck View Post
I did watch the games and the coaching was terrible. This team had enough good players to roll 4 lines and 6 D, yet he did not he used 6 forwards and 3-4 D. To blame Mckeown is brutal remember Ekblad was ES last year.
I think if you re-read my initial post about McKeown, you'll see that in no way have I tried to lay the blame of the loss on him. I said the whole team lacked precision and it cost them dearly.

I have said all along that McKeown is a great player and I brought him up specifically because I expected him to dominate that tournament and was quite surprised, given my HIGH expectations for him, that he played so poorly in the Quebec game.

If you saw the game then I'm sure you would agree that McDavid did not have a bad game simply because he did not make the scoresheet.


And give me a break with this "brutal" nonsense. Man, all of this fake outrage is just ridiculous.

OSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2013, 10:36 PM
  #69
BigBuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OSA View Post
I think if you re-read my initial post about McKeown, you'll see that in no way have I tried to lay the blame of the loss on him. I said the whole team lacked precision and it cost them dearly.

I have said all along that McKeown is a great player and I brought him up specifically because I expected him to dominate that tournament and was quite surprised, given my HIGH expectations for him, that he played so poorly in the Quebec game.

If you saw the game then I'm sure you would agree that McDavid did not have a bad game simply because he did not make the scoresheet.


And give me a break with this "brutal" nonsense. Man, all of this fake outrage is just ridiculous.
I reread your original post and you said Mckeown was terrible, Ontario gave up 2 power play goals and lost 2-1. I think the coach is to blame for the loss for not using all of the players available to their fullest, you think otherwise so we will agree to disagree on this. Cheers.

BigBuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 07:23 AM
  #70
ottsabrefan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: kanata, ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OSA View Post
Did you watch the game?
The first two periods, yes.

ottsabrefan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-05-2013, 10:26 AM
  #71
mapleleaf979
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,529
vCash: 500
The lines combo's never had a physical, checking presense. Bourne and Lindo can be relentless on the forecheck and be a physical presence. They cause turnovers and make D guys panic. Lindo with Mcdavid, Bennett. Bourne or Hargrave or even both with Fabbri. These guys played 80 games together in the last year on the same lines and even more in past years. The top lines had too much skill and not enough muscle. Burning out your Dmen with a short bench. The size they had all stacked on a 4th line that rarely saw ice. The coaching was to put it mildly, Horrible.

1st- Mcdavid-Bennett-Watson
2nd- Salituro-Dal Colle-McCann
3rd- Petti-Hosang-Fabbri
4th- Lindo-Bourne-Hargrave/Cornel

I would have preferred this:

Mcdavid-Bennett-Lindo
Bourne-Fabbri-Hosang
Watson-McCann-Hargrave
Salituro-Dal Colle-Cornel/Petti

mapleleaf979 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.