HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Olympic Hockey Thread IV

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-22-2014, 01:34 PM
  #51
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 10,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
Fun fact: Mikael Granlund was taken one pick ahead of Dylan McIlrath in the 2010 NHL Draft.
So the Rangers never had a shot at drafting him? Good to know.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 02:23 PM
  #52
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy View Post
American sports tend to be odd that way though. In Association football, there are multiple trophies to be won across all competitions, teams set different goals and agendas.

In NHL, NFL, MLB, everyone only cares about the one trophy.
These guys are basically trained from the time they're in their early teens that there's only one real winner. It's hard to blame them for this kind of a letdown after such a demoralizing loss yesterday. I know Finland had the same set of circumstances. At least they grew up embracing the medal system and exposure to multiple winners. More so than North Americans anyway. I bet that if the US won yesterday, Canada would have put up a similar performance today against the Finns.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 03:11 PM
  #53
AHB*
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy View Post
You mean to say that if you worked your whole life to get to the olympics, and won silver or bronze, you'd throw it in the trash because it is a "loser medal"?

North Americans don't seem to fully grasp what a medal system is about.
Where did i say throw it in the trash? Regardless of other teams in this tournament, the USA was expected to play for a gold medal, Canada withstanding or not.

It was a failure to win anything less then that. You're going to tell me the Women are happy with their "silver" because they waited their whole lives to get to the Olympics. How about Kim Yuna, widely expected to win gold by everyone, she sure didn't seem happy with that silver. You can't equate a bronze with every athlete. Their are certain teams/individuals that play for gold and anything less is a failure, there are others that just medaling would be incredibly successful.

As someone previously said, it's all taken in context. If Latvia were to win a Bronze, that would be huge for them. For this USA team to win a Bronze is simply, a loss.

I watch Soccer, I understand the value of different placings. But I also understand the concept of context. For this USA hockey team, it was Gold Medal or bust. Show me one guy who would have been happy with that. Everyone knew after the loss yesterday that this Olympics became a failure for them.

I'm a fan of Sunderland, not getting relegated and getting to the finals of the league cup could be considered a successful season in my eyes.

If the USA was to get to the quarterfinals in the World Cup, that would be a major victory. This USA team getting a bronze, is a failure. Context.

And no need for others to chime in as if my post was stupid or something. It's a matter of opinion. Sure a Bronze is better then nothing. But I don't care if the team got up this morning or not and I don't care about this game. Doesn't mean i rooted against them, but frankly, coming in third was all semantics.

If the Islanders lost in the conference finals this year, it would have been a major success for them. If the Bruins lost in the conference finals this year, it would have been a failure. Different teams, different events, different expectations. This USA failed to meet them by not playing for Gold or Silver. I bet the majority of the players would agree with me no that one, considering that is what they all said prior to the games beginning.


Last edited by AHB*: 02-22-2014 at 03:18 PM.
AHB* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 03:26 PM
  #54
AHB*
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,136
vCash: 500
On another note, I'm guessing most people are rooting for Hank tomorrow, right?

I went to Ikea yesterday and bought some Swedish chocolate. Good omens.

AHB* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 03:36 PM
  #55
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,988
vCash: 500
What I'm saying is that for me, I'd be playing just as hard knowing it's better to go home with a Bronze than the absolute travesty that would be not medalling at all. Especially if I'm not one of the guys who won silver in 2010.

Failing with a 64 is not as bad as failing with a 20, and IMO the USA not medalling at all, even though the goal was gold, is the biggest possible embarrassment.

Only way to salvage this Olympics will be if Hank wins gold tomorrow. USA better come out all guns blazing in world cup 2015.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 03:44 PM
  #56
AHB*
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy View Post
What I'm saying is that for me, I'd be playing just as hard knowing it's better to go home with a Bronze than the absolute travesty that would be not medalling at all. Especially if I'm not one of the guys who won silver in 2010.

Failing with a 64 is not as bad as failing with a 20, and IMO the USA not medalling at all, even though the goal was gold, is the biggest possible embarrassment.

Only way to salvage this Olympics will be if Hank wins gold tomorrow. USA better come out all guns blazing in world cup 2015.
I agree with all of this. Seems we are discussing semantics and extremes.

Regardless of my lack of caring for Bronze, their performance today was embarrassing for US hockey.

I don't care about their lack of hardware as much as i do their lack of waking up. An athlete should always be proud to play for their country, even in a game that is essentially irrelevant.

My harsh feelings stemming from our loss yesterday probably overflowed into my previous post.

AHB* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 03:49 PM
  #57
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,988
vCash: 500
USA players have not shown a commitment to playing in the World Championships either, so its clear that playing for their country at every opportunity is not a priority.

The one soldier who shows up whenever he can; Jack Johnson, was one of many decent options passed over for Orpik, 2000 BC schmuck. . A tragic choice who was lazy on Canada's only goal and gave the opposition many chances. Bylsma. Dead to me.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 03:55 PM
  #58
SoftEuro4thLiner
Registered User
 
SoftEuro4thLiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Austria
Posts: 2,778
vCash: 500
So, your guys took one out of Austria's playbook, it seems. For future purposes: Don't do that.
Anyway, good for Teemu, I love that guy.

Now, for tomorrow, I wanna see Canada end up with 50 shots in 60 minutes, but no goal. I want to see Henke go insane. Heija Sverige!

SoftEuro4thLiner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 03:57 PM
  #59
SoftEuro4thLiner
Registered User
 
SoftEuro4thLiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Austria
Posts: 2,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy View Post
USA players have not shown a commitment to playing in the World Championships either, so its clear that playing for their country at every opportunity is not a priority.

The one soldier who shows up whenever he can; Jack Johnson, was one of many decent options passed over for Orpik, 2000 BC schmuck. . A tragic choice who was lazy on Canada's only goal and gave the opposition many chances. Bylsma. Dead to me.
I agree with this. Whenever he's been counted on, JJ was no less than a rock for the US.

SoftEuro4thLiner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 04:00 PM
  #60
AHB*
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy View Post
USA players have not shown a commitment to playing in the World Championships either, so its clear that playing for their country at every opportunity is not a priority.

The one soldier who shows up whenever he can; Jack Johnson, was one of many decent options passed over for Orpik, 2000 BC schmuck. . A tragic choice who was lazy on Canada's only goal and gave the opposition many chances. Bylsma. Dead to me.
I think it's a general consensus Orpik should have never been near that team. Bylsma favoritism at its finest. I may sound arrogant here, but I don't think winning one cup in 4 or 5 years with Malkin and Crosby as your top two centers doesn't qualify you as a good coach.

With the blue collar crew they chose, I would have liked to see Torts coaching the team, whether as an assistant or HC. I think he and laviolette would have made for a much better duo. He's too volatile though and not the PC choice.

JJ and EJ were tough choices to leave off. EJ hasn't been as bad this year as many made it seem.

We lacked scoring, shocker. Should have taken Bobby Ryan. Would have liked to see Okposo there too, even as an Isles hater.

We took to much grit and not enough skill and it showed against the top teams. TJ Oshie really did nothing, outside of the skills competition. Stastny and MaxPac were garbage. Dustin Brown was laughable. Callahan actually had a much better tournament then i expected, but making him a lock was a joke.

The USA team was built far to much on politics rather then merit. That needs to change.

I don't understand the concept of choosing a coach, for a blue collar squad, that has built his reputation on coaching arguably the most skilled team in the NHL. Like Sather, this team reeked of no direction.

One second we're a speed team. The next we're a skill team. The next were a hard checking team. I heard it all. What were they? In the end, didn't really seem like any of it. Very few hits, no goals in the last two, weak team defense, soft on the puck.

Poorly built. USA hockey needs to overhaul itself and take a look in the mirror. Too many cooks in the kitchen and it showed.

AHB* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 04:17 PM
  #61
SoftEuro4thLiner
Registered User
 
SoftEuro4thLiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Austria
Posts: 2,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHB View Post
I think it's a general consensus Orpik should have never been near that team. Bylsma favoritism at its finest. I may sound arrogant here, but I don't think winning one cup in 4 or 5 years with Malkin and Crosby as your top two centers doesn't qualify you as a good coach.

With the blue collar crew they chose, I would have liked to see Torts coaching the team, whether as an assistant or HC. I think he and laviolette would have made for a much better duo. He's too volatile though and not the PC choice.

JJ and EJ were tough choices to leave off. EJ hasn't been as bad this year as many made it seem.

We lacked scoring, shocker. Should have taken Bobby Ryan. Would have liked to see Okposo there too, even as an Isles hater.

We took to much grit and not enough skill and it showed against the top teams. TJ Oshie really did nothing, outside of the skills competition. Stastny and MaxPac were garbage. Dustin Brown was laughable. Callahan actually had a much better tournament then i expected, but making him a lock was a joke.

The USA team was built far to much on politics rather then merit. That needs to change.

I don't understand the concept of choosing a coach, for a blue collar squad, that has built his reputation on coaching arguably the most skilled team in the NHL. Like Sather, this team reeked of no direction.

One second we're a speed team. The next we're a skill team. The next were a hard checking team. I heard it all. What were they? In the end, didn't really seem like any of it. Very few hits, no goals in the last two, weak team defense, soft on the puck.

Poorly built. USA hockey needs to overhaul itself and take a look in the mirror. Too many cooks in the kitchen and it showed.
You've got a lot of things right. Firstly, I could make a very good argument for Erik Johnson being the 3rd best US defender this year. I think he should have been at the Black Sea, no doubt.

I'm with you on the Orpik stance. He shouldn't have been on this team.

As on the "no identity" part on the end of your post, I disagree with you there. No team had enough time to form a group of players going with one system. Finland did it best, imo. You need a combination of everything to have a shot. The US, Canada, Sweden, Finland, and to a very large extent Latvia did a very solid job forming a group of players with everyone knowing their job. You need a bit of skill, a bit of defense and a bit of being a mean Backes to accomplish this. I just don't think it's possible to form a NHL-team like identity over such a short time.

Nevertheless, solid post!

SoftEuro4thLiner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 04:26 PM
  #62
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,988
vCash: 500
Okposo you're never sure because of the Tavares effect. It's like Kunitz.

2 of 3 top USA forwards bombed; Kane and Parise were a no go in big situations. Canada shut down Kessel, and we had no response.

I blame the problems on a lack of top flight center icemen. Kesler is a good #3 on a goal medal national team. Backes a #4. USA didn't have a dynamic point per game playmaking center to unlock defenses. Pavelski played well but not well enough.

Maybe Galchenyuk will be ready for 2015, we'll see.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 04:35 PM
  #63
Ratelleitlikeitis
Registered User
 
Ratelleitlikeitis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: S.Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 673
vCash: 500
I blame the problems on a lack of top flight center icemen. Kesler is a good #3 on a goal medal national team. Backes a #4. USA didn't have a dynamic point per game playmaking center to unlock defenses. Pavelski played well but not well enough.

Sounds like circumstances we can relate to here in comparison to our strongest competition.

On another note, I'm guessing most people are rooting for Hank tomorrow, right?

We'll most but not all...go Canada! Another 1-0 with Nash scoring the winner would be acceptable.

Ratelleitlikeitis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 04:36 PM
  #64
Bob Richards
Global Moderator
Mr. Mojo Risin'
 
Bob Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 49,911
vCash: 50
Hank and Hagelin taking home gold would heal some wounds.

Sorry, Nash.

Bob Richards is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 05:09 PM
  #65
ColonialsHockey10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,902
vCash: 500
Jack Johnson. Seriously? How many Columbus games have you watched?

I wish "loyalty" could earn me the reputation Jack Johnson has on this website. Fact of the matter is he sucks. As overrated a guy like Keith Yandle is, he and a number of other defenseman are ahead of Jack Johnson.

Not going to disagree in regards to Orpik though (although I thought he was fine for much of the tournament).

ColonialsHockey10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 05:12 PM
  #66
ColonialsHockey10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,902
vCash: 500
Another thing that needs to be looked at is the "leadership" group.

Callahan, Brown, Parise and Kesler are a shell of the players they were a few short years ago. That's a major red flag.

Callahan did work his ass off this tournament. Which is refreshing, because he's been a crap leader and player for nearly 2 years now.

The players cut from the final roster make up a contingent of perpetual disappointments and lazy players. I don't think the players selected were a problem. The cupboard is thinner than we might think, though (which isn't to say they couldn't win gold).

ColonialsHockey10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 05:57 PM
  #67
trilobyte
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 15,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColonialsHockey10 View Post
Another thing that needs to be looked at is the "leadership" group.

Callahan, Brown, Parise and Kesler are a shell of the players they were a few short years ago. That's a major red flag.

Callahan did work his ass off this tournament. Which is refreshing, because he's been a crap leader and player for nearly 2 years now.

The players cut from the final roster make up a contingent of perpetual disappointments and lazy players. I don't think the players selected were a problem. The cupboard is thinner than we might think, though (which isn't to say they couldn't win gold).

Just from watching, I wonder about that. First, Team USA played a very physical game against Team Canada in 2010, if my memory serves me correctly. Do you not think a Byfuglien or Okposo (those players jump to mind immediately, there may be others) would have served them well this tourney?

trilobyte is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 06:12 PM
  #68
DMPD
Mats, Zuke of NY
 
DMPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia
Country: United States
Posts: 19,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHB View Post
Where did i say throw it in the trash? Regardless of other teams in this tournament, the USA was expected to play for a gold medal, Canada withstanding or not.

It was a failure to win anything less then that. You're going to tell me the Women are happy with their "silver" because they waited their whole lives to get to the Olympics. How about Kim Yuna, widely expected to win gold by everyone, she sure didn't seem happy with that silver. You can't equate a bronze with every athlete. Their are certain teams/individuals that play for gold and anything less is a failure, there are others that just medaling would be incredibly successful.

As someone previously said, it's all taken in context. If Latvia were to win a Bronze, that would be huge for them. For this USA team to win a Bronze is simply, a loss.

I watch Soccer, I understand the value of different placings. But I also understand the concept of context. For this USA hockey team, it was Gold Medal or bust. Show me one guy who would have been happy with that. Everyone knew after the loss yesterday that this Olympics became a failure for them.

I'm a fan of Sunderland, not getting relegated and getting to the finals of the league cup could be considered a successful season in my eyes.

If the USA was to get to the quarterfinals in the World Cup, that would be a major victory. This USA team getting a bronze, is a failure. Context.

And no need for others to chime in as if my post was stupid or something. It's a matter of opinion. Sure a Bronze is better then nothing. But I don't care if the team got up this morning or not and I don't care about this game. Doesn't mean i rooted against them, but frankly, coming in third was all semantics.

If the Islanders lost in the conference finals this year, it would have been a major success for them. If the Bruins lost in the conference finals this year, it would have been a failure. Different teams, different events, different expectations. This USA failed to meet them by not playing for Gold or Silver. I bet the majority of the players would agree with me no that one, considering that is what they all said prior to the games beginning.
My feelings exactly.

I mean it is nice for them to at least win something for the country, add to the medal count, moral victories etc etc, but realistically this was a gold or bust tournament for USA hockey, men and women. They both failed horribly.

I am actually glad Finland won bronze because I think it means more to them, especially with the story lines including injuries and Teemu's last go around.

__________________


rip
DMPD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 06:15 PM
  #69
stan the caddy
Registered User
 
stan the caddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,816
vCash: 500
People are still complaining about Orpik after they lose 5-0 and he was one of the few players that wasn't a minus? He was the whipping boy before the game started.

stan the caddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 06:18 PM
  #70
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHB View Post
I think it's a general consensus Orpik should have never been near that team. Bylsma favoritism at its finest. I may sound arrogant here, but I don't think winning one cup in 4 or 5 years with Malkin and Crosby as your top two centers doesn't qualify you as a good coach.

With the blue collar crew they chose, I would have liked to see Torts coaching the team, whether as an assistant or HC. I think he and laviolette would have made for a much better duo. He's too volatile though and not the PC choice.

JJ and EJ were tough choices to leave off. EJ hasn't been as bad this year as many made it seem.

We lacked scoring, shocker. Should have taken Bobby Ryan. Would have liked to see Okposo there too, even as an Isles hater.

We took to much grit and not enough skill and it showed against the top teams. TJ Oshie really did nothing, outside of the skills competition. Stastny and MaxPac were garbage. Dustin Brown was laughable. Callahan actually had a much better tournament then i expected, but making him a lock was a joke.

The USA team was built far to much on politics rather then merit. That needs to change.

I don't understand the concept of choosing a coach, for a blue collar squad, that has built his reputation on coaching arguably the most skilled team in the NHL. Like Sather, this team reeked of no direction.

One second we're a speed team. The next we're a skill team. The next were a hard checking team. I heard it all. What were they? In the end, didn't really seem like any of it. Very few hits, no goals in the last two, weak team defense, soft on the puck.

Poorly built. USA hockey needs to overhaul itself and take a look in the mirror. Too many cooks in the kitchen and it showed.
Agree one thousand percent. And IMO a lot of the guys in charge need to go. Especially Brian Burke, one of the most overrated people involved in hockey.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 06:26 PM
  #71
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,227
vCash: 500
I thought Bylsma did a good job.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 06:28 PM
  #72
AHB*
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoftEuro4thLiner View Post
You've got a lot of things right. Firstly, I could make a very good argument for Erik Johnson being the 3rd best US defender this year. I think he should have been at the Black Sea, no doubt.

I'm with you on the Orpik stance. He shouldn't have been on this team.

As on the "no identity" part on the end of your post, I disagree with you there. No team had enough time to form a group of players going with one system. Finland did it best, imo. You need a combination of everything to have a shot. The US, Canada, Sweden, Finland, and to a very large extent Latvia did a very solid job forming a group of players with everyone knowing their job. You need a bit of skill, a bit of defense and a bit of being a mean Backes to accomplish this. I just don't think it's possible to form a NHL-team like identity over such a short time.

Nevertheless, solid post!
Yea, I agree about the "not having enough time to form an identity" but the problem I was alluding to was that they didn't even pick guys with a basis of an identity. Half the team was skilled player who don't get gritty and the other half was gritty players who lack top-end skill.

Maybe that's the point and possibly what would work best but I don't know that I agree. In the NHL a mixture is necessary, but there are so many teams that these skill sets become diluted (hence major contracts to guys like Clarkson, etc.).

Those bottom two lines of "leadership" players, didn't provide any offense really. In the games that counted, they weren't threats.

When there was a blatant disregard for Bobby Ryan and guys like Yandle and Buff, and when the USA team falls flat on its face and can't muster up offensive opps, let alone goals, you have to ponder the management.

This team wasn't ready to compete with the big dogs.

From what I gathered they were going for a skilled, speedy, high scoring team. If that's the case, they made a lot of mistakes in their choices and left quite a few guys off who would have suited the team much more.

Some of Burkes comments in that Burnside article really stood out to me as either:

A) He didn't watch "said" player enough
or
B) Doesn't really know the game of hockey well enough to be in that position (regardless of his accolades)

I mean Yandle's skating? Ryan's intensity? EJ's poor play.

What is the justification for Orpik who can't skate as well as either of those guys and has easily had the worst season of the three?

How about the versatility of top line wingers. We were stuck with Kane even though he hit a slump for the whole tournament, because no one else could slot into that top line.

All i heard was that we would have no trouble scoring. Outside of Kessel and Kane, this team did not have enough high level scoring wingers to leave someone like Bobby Ryan home.

The overthinking management team chose guys and pinpointed them into roles. Did they ever consider that those roles might not work? That lines might need to be juggled and players moved up and down? This team had very few versatile players outside of really Blake Wheeler.

AHB* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 06:30 PM
  #73
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan the caddy View Post
People are still complaining about Orpik after they lose 5-0 and he was one of the few players that wasn't a minus? He was the whipping boy before the game started.
In other words... "we lost! this sucks! what happened here? Penguins defenseman and Penguins coach? I hate the Penguins! That must be the reason."

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 06:30 PM
  #74
ColonialsHockey10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trilobyte View Post
Just from watching, I wonder about that. First, Team USA played a very physical game against Team Canada in 2010, if my memory serves me correctly. Do you not think a Byfuglien or Okposo (those players jump to mind immediately, there may be others) would have served them well this tourney?
Like someone mentioned above, Okposo has been a pedestrian player his entire career and was on a hot streak with a top 3 forward in the game.

Byfuglien is one of those guys that's constantly being shuffled between D and forward. Where does he fit. Justin Faulk has a ****ing cannon, he just played 1 game.

EJ is a solid, unspectacular disappointment, and has always been that.

Yandle is just beyond overrated.

Ryan is indeed void of intensity. You know who's out scoring him the past 2 years? Our 12th forward, Blake Wheeler.

The fact that the "experts" on television were saying Jack Johnson was a big emission exemplifies why this sport is second tier. He blows. If I stay at work an extra hour a day will they promote me to Chairman of the Board? He gets to play Hockey in another country for a couple extra weeks each year. Man, what a patriot!

They certainly were capable of making the team, but I don't think they would have added an element that team USA was lacking. It's a semantics argument; if Kane and Parise play a little better chances are we're in the gold medal game.

ColonialsHockey10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2014, 06:36 PM
  #75
AHB*
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
In other words... "we lost! this sucks! what happened here? Penguins defenseman and Penguins coach? I hate the Penguins! That must be the reason."
How about all the other games in the tournament.......

But it makes sense to just focus on this one, right? Guess McD was an absolutely awful choice then.

AHB* 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 12:25 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.