Team Oafs...err....Team Canada let us down.

[CentreHice]

skilly said:

centrehice said:

Before I comment on this, are you serious?

I am not sure I understand what part you want clarified.

Yes I am serious that I think Gretzky should have made selections based on how the guys were performing now and not just take a bunch of players because he likes them personally. (I think Staal, Spezza and Phaneuf should have been on this team unquestionably)

I was being faceious when I said "Gretzky's gambling addiction".

The gambling addiction comment was what I wanted clarified. Thanks.

As I posted earlier, I agree with you in that the tryouts were a facade. e.g. Bertuzzi was on the team as soon as he was re-instated, regardless of his play. They wanted him for the World Cup but he was still suspended.

[Doc Holliday]

badcompany said:

machabby said:

I don't think it's entirely fair to be criticising Gretzky here. As Don Cherry said, we all had our say when the team was selected and it's a little unfair to kick him when he's down. Afterall, this team had enough talent that they could have won, and no matter who he selected they could still have lost and everyone would blame him. The bottom line is that there were a lot of really talented players on this team who just didn't play at the level expected of them.

I think that’s it. We can second guess the selection process and/or the players all we want, but in my opinion we just have to accept the fact that we aren’t as far ahead of other nations as we sometimes think we are. Take the top 20 players from Canada, and match them up against the top 20 players from other teams, and there isn’t much of a difference. Especially in a short tournament, where the top 10 guys get double-shifted anyways.

I also don’t buy the “we needed young guys” argument. Heatley, Nash, Bowmeester, they’re all pretty young. Heck, guys like Thornton, Lecavalier, and Richards are all under 27. It’s easy to say “this guy shouldn’t have been there,” but when you have guys in the prime of their careers, who have proven they can play at elite levels and win the big games, then that’s who you have to go with. St. Louis was NHL MVP, Richards was Stanley Cup MVP, Lecavalier was World Cup MVP. How do you leave them off the team? Blaming guys like Doan or Draper is like blaming Sundstrom and Streit for what ails the Canadiens – maybe you could have had better players, but in the end they were just secondary players anyways.

We just got beat. Sucks, but hey, it happens.

I fully agree BC. When puting together a National team, you have to look a little beyond this year's stats. Heck, a guy like Kovalev is Russia's captain and plays on their first line yet is not having that great of a season same for Sundin with the Swedes. Both guys are key players to their team.

Picking a National team isn't an exact science that can be done with a sort on an Excel spreadsheet. You have to factor in things like experience, chemistry, leadership, etc... This edition didn't work. Saperlipopette happens.

[habernac]

don't understand the dislike of Doan on this team. Along with Richards and Brodeur, he was one of the few who actually looked like he gave a crap about playing hard and winning.

Pronger - how many cross checking penalties did he need to take before he figured out the refs would call every single one of them?

McCabe - WTF is he doing anywhere near the big ice? He was sent home from Europe during the lockout because he was brutal. Newsflash: he still is brutal.

Joe Thornton - where's the grit this guy used to bring to a game? He skates around with a purse on his arm now.

Jarome Iginla - he's been asleep all year, I've unfortunatley had a front row seat to it here in Calgary. Fatherhood and the lockout have not done good things to the Flames captain.

Rob Blake - looked old, slow and out of place.

Adam Foote - see above

Todd Bertuzzi - ignoring past transgressions, this guy simply was not playing well enough in the NHL season to have been granted an invite.


It's a tough job selecting a Team Canada, you're expected to bring back gold. No other medal will do. But I do think one of the bad things Gretz learned from Glen Sather was cronyism. Remember the 96 World Cup, when we sent the old geezer 80's Oiler team and put Blo-jo in net instead of Patrick Roy? (Sather wouldn't pick him because he couldn't stand him. What an idiot.)

Someone new needs to come in and they cannot be afraid to make tough decisions.

[Forum Ghost]

rimmer said:

will Sakic now be questioned about his leadership because his team played poorly by those who questioned the leadership of Koivu? funny how team Finland and team Russia don't have problems with leadership...

Good point rimmer.

Team Canada underperformed and played sub-par hockey throughout the tournament. Must mean that Joe Sakic is an awful captain.

I've never believed the media-fueled theory that Koivu is a bad captain. I've always thought that Koivu, as Habs captain, gets unfairly criticized.

His team, in these Olympics, is undefeated. Perhaps Koivu will get a little bit of respect if Finland ends up winning the gold.

[del]

Everything has been said so I won't repeat; however, one gripe I have, that really pees me off, is the age old and terminally worn lament of ours, that we didn't come together as a team.

WHY do the Canadian superstars find it so difficult to skate as a team, when the euros find it so easy?

And why do we use it as an excuse? Is that really the reason or is it just smoke covering up the fact that this team just didn't have the horses - pintos instead of mustangs.

I think we will ice a significantly superior team for Whistler in terms of quality. I just don't want to hear anymore garbage about a lack of team unity being a factor,win or lose.

[Cranky]

del said:

Everything has been said so I won't repeat; however, one gripe I have, that really pees me off, is the age old and terminally worn lament of ours, that we didn't come together as a team.

WHY do the Canadian superstars find it so difficult to skate as a team, when the euros find it so easy?

And why do we use it as an excuse? Is that really the reason or is it just smoke covering up the fact that this team just didn't have the horses - pintos instead of mustangs.

I think we will ice a significantly superior team for Whistler in terms of quality. I just don't want to hear anymore garbage about a lack of team unity being a factor,win or lose.

I agree.

The other excuse its that we have the "talent" to field THREE Olympic teams and still be competitive. What is that suppose to mean? The first team sucked so now we should field three teams and beat the Jamaican hockey team?

As for you comment. Why do people who played all their lives on hockey teams and are considered stars and superstars need a months worth of games to gel? Why? They don't know who to pass to or what their defensive roles are?

There were GROSS errors made on this team and even the greenest of hockey fans knows that you need the players that suit the competition.

[Cranky]

rimmer said:

habsaddict said:

Unless of course one wants to argue that our CANDIAN players are just mercenaries that don't even care or have any pride.....even for their country.

I thought Kovalev and Koivu were suppose to be mercenaries for caring more about representing their respective countries in the Olympics. Canadians players are mercenaries for not caring about representing their country in the Olympics. does this mean that all players are mercenaries regardless of whether they care more about their country or their team?

not directed at HA, but...will Sakic now be questioned about his leadership because his team played poorly by those who questioned the leadership of Koivu? funny how team Finland and team Russia don't have problems with leadership...

R.

I am CONFUSED! LOL!

I don't have a problem with how Sakic played but on the other hand, he certainly was not elite.

I have one pet peeve, or should I say one burden that I carry. I expect people who play for the love of the game to go through the wall to win. While there were flashes of guts for glory, too often I saw less then the fanatical play of our opponents. If you want to win, you need to be HUNGRIER and willing to sacrifice MORE then your opponent.

Oveckin willingly and joyfully drove head first into a wall of our players. Thornton, Iggy and the rest tried to wrestle on the perimeter. They actually played EXACTLY where our opponents wanted us to play and neither our players or our brain trust could not figure this out over four games.

[MC Habber]

rimmer said:

habsaddict said:

Unless of course one wants to argue that our CANDIAN players are just mercenaries that don't even care or have any pride.....even for their country.

I thought Kovalev and Koivu were suppose to be mercenaries for caring more about representing their respective countries in the Olympics. Canadians players are mercenaries for not caring about representing their country in the Olympics. does this mean that all players are mercenaries regardless of whether they care more about their country or their team?

not directed at HA, but...will Sakic now be questioned about his leadership because his team played poorly by those who questioned the leadership of Koivu? funny how team Finland and team Russia don't have problems with leadership...

R.

Just goes to show how hard leadership is to evaluate. You can't argue that Sakic wasn't a great captain for the Avs: even though many people considered Forsberg to be the better player, when Forsberg was out of the lineup, Sakic and the Avs were still able to win, but when Sakic got injured and Forsberg was healthy, the Avs were a shadow of the team they were with Sakic.

But in Italy, Sakic wasn't a strong enough leader. You can blame the other players, but ultimately, the job of a leader is to lead his team to victory and Sakic didn't even come close. As I said above, I think it might be a case of players having too much respect for each other and not feeling like they could take the lead.

I'm not really trying to criticise Sakic here, I'm just saying that he was not the right person for the job of captain. But without Mario and Yzerman, I'm not sure who would have been a better choice.

[MC Habber]

habernac said:

Joe Thornton - where's the grit this guy used to bring to a game? He skates around with a purse on his arm now.

I've never liked Thornton. He's got so much talent and great size, but he only shows up when he feels like it, and he always disappears in big games and the playoffs. He needs to be on a team with a strong leader that he can follow, IMO - if there's too much pressure on him he crumples like toilet paper.

[Skilly]

Everyone says this team lacked leadership. Baloney. There were more NHL captains or former captains on this team than on any other team. These people should have stepped up if they saw that leadership was a problem.

Captains on this team: Blake, Iginla, Lecavalier, Pronger, Sakic, Smyth, and Thornton. (and I believe Doan was captain of Phoenix once, maybe still is)

So 25% of team Canada were in a leadership role on their respective NHL clubs.

I feel the make up of this team was terrible. Like I said before they barely won the last Olympics with practically the same team. Then they rolled over the competition to win the World Cup? Why? Because it was on smaller ice surface, with NHL refs, under the old NHL rules, were they could commit goonery and get away with it. Add to thatthat the Europeans could care less about the World Cup and it is a perfect recipe for Canada vs USA.

The Olympics ... well they are a different bird. Europeans love the Olympics. They were dreaming of winning the Olympics long before winning the Stanley Cup. They bring their "A" game for that tournament. It is a bigger ice surface, with international refs, and you better have speed and skill.

Russia has four talented lines better than any of Team canada's lines. Team Finland plays like a team and relies on everybody working hard.

Team Canada was coprised of goons. Players who have a reputations for being strong along the boards and bangers and crashers in front of the net. We had no less than 6 power forwards sent over there. 6 guys who make their living in the NHL crashing the net for garbage goals.

Doan, Iginla, Thornton, Lecavalier, Bertuzzi, Smyth all basically the same type of player.

We had a PK specialist over there when 80% of the team kills penalties for their respective NHL clubs.

The only skill players we had sent over there was Nash (and an argument could be made he is a power forward too), Heatley, Richards, Sakic, St.Louis (in the midst of a terrible year) and Gagne.

You add Pronger and McCabe to the bunch of goons we had up front and well .... it didnt take a genius to figure out we were going to be living in the penalty box. Gretzky should have realized from the European fall-out of Bertuzzi's situation that they wer enot going to welcome him with open arms and he was going to get penalized to death .... Gretzky said it himself last Olympics, they love to put us down, they love to see us gripe ..... well he gave them plenty of chance by including Bertuzzi to put us down.

Do I think they would have won with a different group. Probably not, it is hard to repeat at anything ... but they would have definately fared better with players who could skate, and players who can put the puck in the net .......

The thing that bothers me the most is that with 6-7 power forwards why were they so content to stay on the outside and shoot, why didnt anyone crash the goalie like ours were being crashed ... if they actually played the power forward Canadian game I wouldn't complain because it would have been obvious whatthe game plan was .... but I can't tell what kind of game they played or whatthe game plan was ... just dump and not skate hard to the puck and shoot from outside is all I saw.

[seventeen]

badcompany said:

I also don’t buy the “we needed young guys” argument. Heatley, Nash, Bowmeester, they’re all pretty young. Heck, guys like Thornton, Lecavalier, and Richards are all under 27. It’s easy to say “this guy shouldn’t have been there,” but when you have guys in the prime of their careers, who have proven they can play at elite levels and win the big games, then that’s who you have to go with. St. Louis was NHL MVP, Richards was Stanley Cup MVP, Lecavalier was World Cup MVP. How do you leave them off the team?

I said I would, at the time of the selections. They can win all the MVP trophies they like, they haven't won my heart. Richards played ok, but St. Louis was not visible in the least (I missed the unimportant Czech game, when the three TB guys were supposed to have played their best....in a meaningless game) and I didn't notice Lecavalier much. Not that they were the only invisible Canadians, but they're supposed to be scorers.

I would have liked more speed, but the talent on the team was good enough. I disagree on the comment about 'coming together as a team'. Chemistry is a large part of a group's success. I had a rotten apple in my group, which kept us from being as successful as we could. Once disposed of, teamwork and effectiveness improved a lot. People would 'go through a wall' for the others, which wasn't the case before. The only wall these Canadian players would go through was the one in front of the bar. I was extremely disappointed to hear only 3 of them showed up at the women's final. That says it all. Too much 'me' on the team and not enough 'us'.

[Forum Ghost]

skilly said:

I feel the make up of this team was terrible. Like I said before they barely won the last Olympics with practically the same team.

How can you say that they barely won the last Olympics?

Mens' Olympic hockey is highly competitive nowadays. Just because Canada wasn't winning all of their games by 8-0 scores, doesn't mean that they "barely" won.

They beat USA soundly in the Gold medal game and their only loss was to Sweden in the very first game.

The team that won gold in 2002 was a very good team. You don't win gold, playing against the best players on the planet, by fluke.

And as an aside... how could you call the "dummy play", that Lemieux did on the Kariya goal, lucky? That was an intentional play by Lemieux. No luck involved.

[Skilly]

forumghost2 said:

skilly said:

I feel the make up of this team was terrible. Like I said before they barely won the last Olympics with practically the same team.

How can you say that they barely won the last Olympics?

Mens' Olympic hockey is highly competitive nowadays. Just because Canada wasn't winning all of their games by 8-0 scores, doesn't mean that they "barely" won.

They beat USA soundly in the Gold medal game and their only loss was to Sweden in the very first game.

The team that won gold in 2002 was a very good team. You don't win gold, playing against the best players on the planet, by fluke.

And as an aside... how could you call the "dummy play", that Lemieux did on the Kariya goal, lucky? That was an intentional play by Lemieux. No luck involved.

Cujo was the #1 goalie. He lost to the Swedes in a blow-out then they almost lost to Germany. If it wasn't for someone realizing thatthe team was struggling and making changes it could have been over before it began. The "myth" (I call it a myth) is that Quinn changed the style of play, got them to gel quickly (as is his reputation , what a farce) and put Brodeur in the rest of the way .....

In 2002 the top three teams advanced to the medal round. The first place teams got a bye, the second and third place teams crossed over in the quarter finals. Canada finished third in their group with a 1-1-1 record. The only team they beat was Germany 3-2. That win got them to the quarter-finals. They lost to Sweden 5-2 and tied the Czechs 3-3 .....

In the medal round the scraped by Finland 2-1 and the Finns handily out-played us. Then we got the luckiest break in Olympic history. Tommy Salo gets scored on from center-ice with a shot that went off his head and instead of playing the undefeated Swedes that had outscored their opponents 14-4 we played Belarus in the semis ..... we killed Belarus 7-1 .... yes we got lucky and I stand by my assertion , my opinion that we barely won.

[Anardil1]

Someone mentioned something about changing the people in charge of selecting, managing, and coaching future Olympic Teams. I like this idea very much. I'd even like to take it one step further. I'd like the people in charge, (especially the selection group) to have no ties to any team in the NHL. This, in theory, would hopefully eliminate the cronyism often displayed in a certain team's selected players. Is it achievable? Or simply Utopia unattainable?

[Skilly]

anardil1 said:

Someone mentioned something about changing the people in charge of selecting, managing, and coaching future Olympic Teams. I like this idea very much. I'd even like to take it one step further. I'd like the people in charge, (especially the selection group) to have no ties to any team in the NHL. This, in theory, would hopefully eliminate the cronyism often displayed in a certain team's selected players. Is it achievable? Or simply Utopia unattainable?

Before Gretzky became "Executive Director" ... Bob Nicholson used topick the teams with advisors ... I say go that route again except make his advisors media based "experts" ..... in a utopia it would be who Nicholson feels are the best GM's, but he would inevitably picked Gretzky crew again.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

I can't tell what kind of game they played or whatthe game plan was ... just dump and not skate hard to the puck and shoot from outside is all I saw.

Which is why I say they lacked leadership. Leadership means you have a plan and you make people follow it. Whoever was supposed to be the leaders didn't do it.

17, where did you hear that only 3 were at the women's final? That is disappointing and suprising indeed. I think that most of the team was there last time.

[Forum Ghost]

skilly said:

Before Gretzky became "Executive Director" ... Bob Nicholson used topick the teams with advisors ...

The 1998 team was picked by Bob Clarke, Bob Gainey and Pierre Gauthier.

[seventeen]

machabby said:

17, where did you hear that only 3 were at the women's final? That is disappointing and suprising indeed. I think that most of the team was there last time.

I think I heard it on CBC or TSN, but I can't recall which or who it was who made the statement...I was so surprised. Actually, they said 8, but the 3 number was either a correction by someone else or by a poster here when I quoted the original number. Either way, to not have all 23 or so there, is a real failing.

[CentreHice]

skilly said:

If not for the luckiest play in Lemieux's career , a behind the back pass between a couple of sticks and skates to Kariya's stick .... well we might not have won then either.

That's not the way I remember it.

Hardly a lucky play...and Lemieux never even touched the puck let alone made a behind-the-back pass. It came in the first period six minutes after the U.S. had made it 1-0. Chris Pronger passed it cross ice to Lemieux who, instead of picking up the pass and shooting, let it go through to Kariya to his left. The play froze Richter for a split-second....and even though he dove to stop Kariya's shot, he was too late. Luck had nothing to do with it.

Here's the source to back it up:

sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/2002/ice_hockey/news/2002/02/24/usa_canada_ap/

Key quote: "After both Brooks and Canada coach Pat Quinn predicted a low-scoring game, Tony Amonte's goal in the first period looked huge. But Kariya answered just over six minutes later, one-timing Chris Pronger's cross-ice pass."

Besides, Skilly, you've posted that all you care about is getting enough Ws to win the prize, even to the point of accepting a goalie who has terrible numbers. The 2002 team got enough Ws to win gold. What is there to criticize?

[Boston_Habs]

Canada was plenty talented enough to win but they played more scared than any other team in the tournament. The players are to blame for sure but I think the coaches bear a good chunk of the blame.

You watch the Russians play and it was clear that the coaches trusted the players to be more open and freewheeling with the puck. Russia generaed a lot of offense off the rush with players using their speed to carry the puck through the neutral zone as opposed to Canada which relied too much on making the precise pass. We really missed a pure rushing dman like Niedermayer or Ray Bourque in his prime to dispense with all the tic-tac-toe and take charge with the puck. The Russians allowed forwards like Ovechkin to gather the puck in the defensive zone and take it all the way down the ice. He's only 20 years old but they trusted him. Pat Quinn would never allow that kind of risk-taking from such a young player. You have to live with the mistakes but the flip side is the players have more fun and they are more relaxed.

I saw Wayne Gretzky interviewed with Bob Costas and he was saying that there is so much pressure on Canada that you NEED to have veterans that have been there before. But I think in a way that only makes the pressure even more unbearable. Players are afraid to take chances. Coaches like Pat Quinn preach station-to-station hockey, make the right pass, don't f^ck up. It's suffocating. I think there needs to be a different attitude at the Olympics. Let the players have fun and use their skills. Take chances. So what if we get beat. Does anyone really dispute that Canada is still the most important hockey country in the world? The talent pipeline is never going to stop. As long as NHL players are in the Olympics we'll win our share of gold medals. So guys like Gretzky and Quinn should chill out - let the players have fun and realize that the rest of the hockey world is pretty damn good. There's no shame in losing as long as you put it all on the line and have fun.

[Willie Dog]

habsaddict said:

*Why is Quinn the head coach? Obviously he is devoid of any strategic planning OR counter planning. When your team is outplayed and scores no goals for 11 out of the last 12 periods, then you KNOW that you should be coaching the lawn bowling team at a seniors home.

A guy I was working with in Hong Kong told me he read somewhere that some of the players on Team Canada asked McCabe how the Leafs won any games with Quinn as head coach.

I guess when the Leafs win, they win in spite of him instead of because fo him.

[CentreHice]

myhabit said:

habsaddict said:

*Why is Quinn the head coach? Obviously he is devoid of any strategic planning OR counter planning. When your team is outplayed and scores no goals for 11 out of the last 12 periods, then you KNOW that you should be coaching the lawn bowling team at a seniors home.

A guy I was working with in Hong Kong told me he read somewhere that some of the players on Team Canada asked McCabe how the Leafs won any games with Quinn as head coach.

I guess when the Leafs win, they win in spite of him instead of because fo him.

I would like to find that published source. That's hilarious.

[NWTHabsFan]

centrehice said:

Canada never scored a goal at the Torino Esposizione Arena in the three games they played there.

With only four urinals for each half of the arena, there were some other problems off the ice in that joint!! That and they served Budweiser.

[Skilly]

centrehice said:

Besides, Skilly, you've posted that all you care about is getting enough Ws to win the prize, even to the point of accepting a goalie who has terrible numbers. The 2002 team got enough Ws to win gold. What is there to criticize?

This is true.


But my criticism is not that the players were bad , but that the style of play and players we had back in 2002 was similar to 2006. We won in 2002, but it wasn't a cake-walk, and eyebrows should have been raised then that maybe, just maybe, we should be playing a different style of game because we won't get Belarus and the Americans (with a declining program) to bail us out and make the "executive" look like geniuses in the future.

Speaking of Belarus. I got to feel for them. In 2002, there was a qualifying tournament where Slovakia got screwed because the NHL wouldn't shut down to let the players play ..... but also in 2002 the top 6 teams from the previous Olympics got a bye past that qualifying tournament.

If the same criteria had to be applied in this Olympics than Belarus should have had a team. They were 4th in the previous Olympics. IIHF always changes the rules for Olympic qualifying to suit the NHL .... I think it is by world rankings now, with a little mini-tournament to decide the final 3 nations.

[Forum Ghost]

skilly said:

But my criticism is not that the players were bad , but that the style of play and players we had back in 2002 was similar to 2006. We won in 2002, but it wasn't a cake-walk, and eyebrows should have been raised then that maybe, just maybe, we should be playing a different style of game because we won't get Belarus and the Americans (with a declining program) to bail us out and make the "executive" look like geniuses in the future.

You can't blame Gretzky and Co. for using the same formula that brought them Olympic gold in 2002 and a World Cup in 2004.

It's easy to be the armchair analyst now and say that they should've done this and that they should've done that.

Regardless of whether they barely won the 2002 gold, the point is that they won.

Will anyone be criticizing Sweden for winning the gold because they beat Switzerland in the quarters?

Tampa Bay needed seven games to beat Calgary in the Stanley Cup final. You could say that the Lightning "barely" won the Cup, but who cares?

If you can win the big prize, then that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if you won the big game by one goal or by ten goals. The only thing people will judge you on is if you won.

[ropoflu]

centrehice said:

myhabit said:

A guy I was working with in Hong Kong told me he read somewhere that some of the players on Team Canada asked McCabe how the Leafs won any games with Quinn as head coach.

I guess when the Leafs win, they win in spite of him instead of because fo him.

I would like to find that published source. That's hilarious.

I think I've read it in last week edition of Planet Hock.. ah ... euh ... nevermind

[Skilly]

forumghost2 said:

skilly said:

But my criticism is not that the players were bad , but that the style of play and players we had back in 2002 was similar to 2006. We won in 2002, but it wasn't a cake-walk, and eyebrows should have been raised then that maybe, just maybe, we should be playing a different style of game because we won't get Belarus and the Americans (with a declining program) to bail us out and make the "executive" look like geniuses in the future.

You can't blame Gretzky and Co. for using the same formula that brought them Olympic gold in 2002 and a World Cup in 2004.

It's easy to be the armchair analyst now and say that they should've done this and that they should've done that.

Regardless of whether they barely won the 2002 gold, the point is that they won.

Will anyone be criticizing Sweden for winning the gold because they beat Switzerland in the quarters?

Tampa Bay needed seven games to beat Calgary in the Stanley Cup final. You could say that the Lightning "barely" won the Cup, but who cares?

If you can win the big prize, then that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if you won the big game by one goal or by ten goals. The only thing people will judge you on is if you won.

Ohh really???

Ask Theo about that. Winning wasnt good enough for him ... and havent I been saying all along that "the only thing that people shuold judge you on is winning"?

Yes they won. I totally agree the formula worked back in 2002 and in 2004. But the World Cup was on NHL rinks, where we know we will dominate. The Olympics back in 2002 was on big ice and we struggled. We got the job done but we struggled. To win again a different formula had to be applied because every other country had made a few changes that shuold have sent signals to our "geniuses" that maybe the power forward game was not going to work.

As for being an armchair analyst. Not really. I had Russia and Czech in gold medal game and Finland vs Sweden in the bronze .... I got the team right and the match ups right just the wrong colour medal game.

[Forum Ghost]

skilly said:

Ohh really???

Ask Theo about that. Winning wasnt good enough for him ...

I meant winning the championship, not regular season games. If you win the championship, then no one really cares how you did it, they just remember that you won.

You can't ask Theo about that because he hasn't been in the Olympics or the Stanley Cup final.

and havent I been saying all along that "the only thing that people shuold judge you on is winning"?

People should judge teams on winning, but the judgement of players is done primarily on stats.

A goalie's value is largely determined on his SP and GAA.

[Willie Dog]

centrehice said:

myhabit said:

A guy I was working with in Hong Kong told me he read somewhere that some of the players on Team Canada asked McCabe how the Leafs won any games with Quinn as head coach.

I guess when the Leafs win, they win in spite of him instead of because fo him.

I would like to find that published source. That's hilarious.

I spoke to the guy in HKong and he said he can't remeber the source and it was from the 2002 Olympics. Sorry about the mix up.

I would conclude that things haven't changed much.

[insomnius]

machabby said:

habernac said:

Joe Thornton - where's the grit this guy used to bring to a game? He skates around with a purse on his arm now.

I've never liked Thornton. He's got so much talent and great size, but he only shows up when he feels like it, and he always disappears in big games and the playoffs. He needs to be on a team with a strong leader that he can follow, IMO - if there's too much pressure on him he crumples like toilet paper.

Exactly my feelings - maybe he and Jocelyn Thibault see the same therapsist to deal with their inability to handle pressure...