|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 3, 2013 16:12:14 GMT -5
Like what Collberg brings to the table. Highly-skilled player with decent wheels.
They'll need all hands on deck to take out the Americans, though. They're rolling at the right time with 21 goals in their last four games. AND they have the goaltending.
Never know, though.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 4, 2013 2:32:19 GMT -5
Collberg has had more than a few shootout highlight reel goals. Heck, I'd have him on the Habs just for the shootout. It would feel really odd to have a guy who can actually score consistently in the shootout.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 4, 2013 6:57:22 GMT -5
Collberg has had more than a few shootout highlight reel goals. Heck, I'd have him on the Habs just for the shootout. It would feel really odd to have a guy who can actually score consistently in the shootout. the new Dags? [hope not] |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jan 4, 2013 10:28:24 GMT -5
Collberg has had more than a few shootout highlight reel goals. Heck, I'd have him on the Habs just for the shootout. It would feel really odd to have a guy who can actually score consistently in the shootout. the new Dags? [hope not] Collberg is a very good skater. Dags.......was never accused of that. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 4, 2013 10:38:49 GMT -5
Dags was never accused of much . . . but he sure could score in the shoot-out! Even when everyone knew what his one "move" was.
For that I miss him. Otherwise . . . not.
|
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Jan 5, 2013 8:06:07 GMT -5
Collberg has had more than a few shootout highlight reel goals. Heck, I'd have him on the Habs just for the shootout. It would feel really odd to have a guy who can actually score consistently in the shootout. Never watched much of the WJC this year, came on such odd times. Here Timmins compare Collberg to a young Alfredsson earlier this year. Anxious for the day he lines up with Galchenyuk...maybe Galagher also. Make a great line. |
|
|
|
Post by NWTHabsFan on Jan 5, 2013 10:14:44 GMT -5
Gally gets a gold medal, Collberg gets silver. No points but both had decent games.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 5, 2013 10:34:19 GMT -5
Congrats to the U.S. They played a heck of a tournament...and got consistent, outstanding goaltending. On a ridiculous note, the low-brows among us revert to Twitter racism after Canada's 5-1 loss to the U.S. Comments |
|
|
|
Post by Anardil1 on Jan 5, 2013 14:28:47 GMT -5
Well, I hate to say it, but this year's team was vastly overrated, starting with the media throwing around the "Dream Team" label, just because the situation was the same as the previous two locked out editions. Even worse, Pierre McGuire said on TSN690 that he was concerned about the team's lack of speed. IMHO, he was spot on. I watched most of the games, from the warm ups in Finland to the actual tourney, the Canucks were constantly a step behind the competition. The offence was inconsistent at best. The defense, spotty and the goalies, average at best. On a positive note, both Galchenyuk and Collberg gained valuable experience in a winning environment. On a side note, I'm not nor ever will be a member of Twitter. No offence to any esteemed HabsRUs members who are members of Twitter, but simply put: You can't have Twitter without TWIT.  |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 5, 2013 19:19:50 GMT -5
There was more than enough talent on Canada's roster to win gold imo. What cost them was being ridiculously flat after the two day break. No excuse not to come out ready to play. I'd have started Boone Jenner's line, or hell thrown him out there with Camara, and had them throw some big hits to set the tone. Instead, they were two steps behind from the start. All the D did was screen Subban every chance they got. That comes down to preparation of players and coaches. When it mattered most, they weren't.
Our D was the weak link. Having watched Reinhart play, I don't see the fuss. I know it's one tournament, and it's his first, but he did nothing to impress. Not even one play that stood out.
I was surprised when MacKinnon and Drouin made the team, both 17 year olds. Nate certainly had his struggles, but if all he was going to be was a 4th liner - without even regular PP duty on a second unit - he should have been left in Halifax. It would have been far better to bring an older presence; a defensive and physical presence. Total misuse in my opinion. Don't bring a young skill player if there's no chance for him to move up in the roster during the tournament.
Subban wasn't great in the first two games, but he sure was in the third and fourth. He got hung out to dry in the semi if you ask me.
I know seeding of pools is based on the previous year, and that the US finished 7th last year, but having one pool with the US, Canada, and Russia seems a bit lop-sided to me. One of the three should have been in the other pool.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 5, 2013 19:25:17 GMT -5
Collberg and Galy are special players. Galy was quietly solid. Not flashy, but typically smart with the puck and sound. If he's there next year, I would expect him to be a tournament leader. Collberg showed some real flashes of brilliance. He's a competitive player. Not sure if he's 5'11, but he plays a very strong game.
I watched the Swiss-Russia quarter final. That Swiss program is getting better and better. They gave Russia fits. Didn't play the trap. Skated with Russia shift for shift. If they had a couple of more guys that could finish, they'd have won that game. Perhaps should have as Russia tied it very late on a goal that had skill, but a fair amount of luck involved in going in. The Swiss aren't very big, but they compete extremely well.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 5, 2013 19:35:47 GMT -5
Team Canada sure missed someone like Cody Ceci [OK, I'm a homer]
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 5, 2013 19:39:33 GMT -5
FWIW, it was somewhat interesting to see who played the best for Russia. Consistently, their best line was the line centered by Grigorenko. He played with Kucherov, who was a linemate with him in Quebec for a while. They had great chemistry. Grig set up a lot of plays for his linemates and had a number of what looked to be goals taken away by great saves.
Conversely, Yakupov had a comparatively poor tournament. His points in the prelims came against Germany, and some were PP points. He played on the perimeter a lot - as do most of the Russians. When he did venture into the middle, he skated into a crowd and turned the puck over. He was clearly frustrated with himself, but Ferraro brought up an interesting point during the Canada Russia prelim game. Is he another Bure, or is he Afinogenov? There were times this tournament where he certainly looked like the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 5, 2013 23:37:40 GMT -5
I wasn't impressed with the coaching, myself. Not that I know much about coaching, I know a little bit about human nature. A key point happened early one when Spott decided that Subban was going to be his goalie, come hell, high water, the Russians or Americans. When a group of guys is together and one guy quite obviously deserves a starting spot, and another guy gets it, I think you have the beginning of players questioning coaching decisions and fairness. From that point on, is what the coach tells you to do, the right thing, or just something that works for him (the coach). I agree that Subban picked up his game a lot from game two to games three and four. From the highlights, it may also be that Subban was screened, but so what? Lots of goalies are screened by their d-men, but they still manage to position themselves so the puck hits them. Except, Subban's not the biggest guy and a lot of those shots found their way over his shoulder. That was a big question mark for me right from the start, his size, his anticipation and his rebound control.
Then as you say, BLNY, the team did not seem ready to play against the US. It's hard to understand the dynamics, but when a team falls flat in a critical game, I tend to think it's more that they were too pumped, than that they weren't up enough for the game. How could you not be up for such a game? Of course you would be, but my experience in playing in important games and playing badly in some, is that I was too keyed up, and as a result I didn't collect passes well (always looking ahead to what I was going to do after receiving the pass), my legs tired easily etc. I wonder if you don't get too much adrenaline flowing and then that kills you. The coach's responsibility in key games is getting the team to relax, not getting them pumped. There's no need to push the gas pedal, so I wonder if that wasn't a problem for the team? I've been hearing all kinds of criticism about the players, but really, the talent on hand was more than enough. Their skating wasn't quite as good as the US, but if you finish your checks you don't need to be faster. You can't be a lot slower, but Team Canada's speed was fine, and the talent level was quite good. I don't know Housley's coaching resume, but I understand it's not all that extensive, so I can't believe we were out systemed, but obviously something didn't work out.
If I had to pick one thing that's hurt Canada the last years we haven't won the WJC, it's our goaltending. The other majors have better goaltending. The games we get good goaltending, we win. I guess the only silver lining out of the whole thing is that Boston doesn't have a blue chip prospect coming up.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 6, 2013 5:52:56 GMT -5
I had no issue with Spott calling Subban his #1 over Binnington. That said, I think it would have been smart to do what other teams do, and Canada has done in the past. That is, start both goalies in the first two round robin games against the lesser lights. Grade their performances, and judge accordingly.
As I saw the screen shots against the US, the teammates that screened Subban came into that position at the last moment. It gave him little, to no, time to adjust. Maybe it's not your day when a d man with no prior WJC goals, and fewer than a handful at the NCAA level scores two in the first period, but Subban's defensemen didn't offer much help. What is it Cherry says? "If you're not going to block it, get out of the way." I am not one to quote Don, but he isn't wrong here. Instead, they just stood there hoping it would hit them.
Part of being 'up', or ready, is to be in control imo. You could be right that they were psyched out. Either way, it's the coaching staff's job to monitor the situation and prepare the players in the appropriate way. They were completely out of control. I was calling for timeout after the first - rare I know. But, considering how they looked, I thought it warranted. After the second goal, I begged for it.
Still, after one they were in the same boat as against the Slovaks. 0-2 down and 40 minutes to play. I'd love to know what happened in the 15 minute intermission. Wasn't anything good, because it was more of the same right off the puck drop.
I didn't watch the bronze medal game, so I can't speak to the goaltending in it. Given the team came back a couple of times, I wouldn't say they'd given up on Subban or that there was any animosity between teammates. They were simply out of sorts against the US, when they shouldn't have been, and showed no ability to fix it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 6, 2013 10:36:04 GMT -5
I can't think of another instance where a Canaidian goaltender played poorly in camp, in the pre-lim games AND in the first two games of the tournament AND still retained his #1 status.
Any other goalie would have been benched after the Germany game, and definitely after the first period of the Slovak game regardless if they won.
Steve Spott after the loss to the Americans in the semis said he felt no need to pump up his players "because he hadnt done it in the other games". Same ol, same ol ...that to me explains the Subban decision.
I'm not hanging the loss on Subban. I blame Spott, I'm sure we have better coaches in the junior ranks. How did he get chosen?
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 6, 2013 10:41:05 GMT -5
Except, Subban's not the biggest guy and a lot of those shots found their way over his shoulder. That was a big question mark for me right from the start, his size, his anticipation and his rebound control. Subban 6'2", 201 Binnington 6'2", 160 My observations were in line with yours in that Subban seems to play a "smallish" game...leaving quite a bit of room when he's on his knees. The first three U.S. goals were all high. He's definitely got the size. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 6, 2013 15:00:10 GMT -5
Did anyone else see the interview with Malcolm and his parents when they were joking around about Malcolm losing the Team Canada lucky hat ( I think it was a hat ). It was passed down, player to player, ...PK had it for both his gold medals. And apparently Malcolm lost it and the team hasn't won since .... You don't laugh at jinxes.  |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 6, 2013 15:45:17 GMT -5
Except, Subban's not the biggest guy and a lot of those shots found their way over his shoulder. That was a big question mark for me right from the start, his size, his anticipation and his rebound control. Subban 6'2", 201 Binnington 6'2", 160 My observations were in line with yours in that Subban seems to play a "smallish" game...leaving quite a bit of room when he's on his knees. The first three U.S. goals were all high. He's definitely got the size. Gotta wonder about those stats. When I've seen the Subban brothers together, PK always looks bigger to me, and I don't think PK is even 6' 2". Colour me skeptical. He doesn't look anywhere near Prices size and Price is 6',2". |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 6, 2013 15:48:09 GMT -5
Did anyone else see the interview with Malcolm and his parents when they were joking around about Malcolm losing the Team Canada lucky hat ( I think it was a hat ). It was passed down, player to player, ...PK had it for both his gold medals. And apparently Malcolm lost it and the team hasn't won since .... You don't laugh at jinxes. The turning point was when Hudon was injured. that left just the Yanks and Swedes with a Hab pick and who ends up in the finals? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jan 6, 2013 16:04:06 GMT -5
Subban 6'2", 201 Binnington 6'2", 160 My observations were in line with yours in that Subban seems to play a "smallish" game...leaving quite a bit of room when he's on his knees. The first three U.S. goals were all high. He's definitely got the size. Gotta wonder about those stats. When I've seen the Subban brothers together, PK always looks bigger to me, and I don't think PK is even 6' 2". Colour me skeptical. He doesn't look anywhere near Prices size and Price is 6',2". I wondered, too. But every site I reference mentions 6'2". Here's a pic of the Subban brothers from draft time. Considering PK is listed at 6'0"...it would appear Malcolm is indeed a couple of inches taller.  (Sorry about the EDIT in your post.....I hit MODIFY instead of QUOTE) |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 6, 2013 18:33:02 GMT -5
Problem is, you can't see Malcolm's 4 inch platform shoes in that pic.
|
|
