jackp Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 Babcock is coaching Team freakin' Canada. I guess he knows what to do more than you do... So you guys think it's smart to split up our most dominant line? The line that scored 4 goals out of our 7 against the Russians? The same line, by the way, that other NHL coaches at the Worlds kept together for the whole tournament? Or are you of the mentality: "He's the Prime Minister, he knows how to run the country better than you do." "He's President Bush, he knows how to deal with foreign affairs better than you do." "He's my boss, he knows how to run this department better than I do." (Nagano 1998) "They're the coaches and if they don't want to use Gretzky in the shootout, they know better than we do." I'm sure that in most hockey areas, Babcock does indeed know way more than me. But that doesn't make him god. That doesn't mean he can't make mistakes. And splitting up our most effective line is not smart. Rather, it's inexplicable. And the lack of scoring against Slovakia seems to bear this out. Even more glaring, was the lack of effectiveness on the part of both Getzlaf and Nash in this game. I'd be very surprised if they're not back together in the next game. Lassiter and Ghost, try to keep your personal animosity towards me from clouding your thinking... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenadian Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 Canada will have the last change come Sunday....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted February 27, 2010 Author Share Posted February 27, 2010 So you guys think it's smart to split up our most dominant line? The line that scored 4 goals out of our 7 against the Russians? The same line, by the way, that other NHL coaches at the Worlds kept together for the whole tournament? Or are you of the mentality: "He's the Prime Minister, he knows how to run the country better than you do." YES, he certainly knows how to run a country better than we do. "He's President Bush, he knows how to deal with foreign affairs better than you do." YES, he certainly knows how to deal with foreign affairs better than we do. "He's my boss, he knows how to run this department better than I do." PROBABLY, since he got the job that we don't have. (Nagano 1998) "They're the coaches and if they don't want to use Gretzky in the shootout, they know better than we do." You got me there. Not using Gretzky, ok, but Ray Bourque ?!?!?! I'm sure that in most hockey areas, Babcock does indeed know way more than me. But that doesn't make him god. That doesn't mean he can't make mistakes. And splitting up our most effective line is not smart. Rather, it's inexplicable. And the lack of scoring against Slovakia seems to bear this out. Even more glaring, was the lack of effectiveness on the part of both Getzlaf and Nash in this game. I'd be very surprised if they're not back together in the next game. Lassiter and Ghost, try to keep your personal animosity towards me from clouding your thinking... I am one of those who thinks that Canada's MAIN advantage over other countries is the DEPTH and being able to send 4 first lines. If Babcock thinks that this is how we're gonna win (and it was perfect until Slovakia got their lucky first goal), than GO FOR IT. I don't care if we run up the score like we did against Russia. Don't care at all. IMO, the Morrow-Perry-Getzlaf line yesterday was close to perfection and this line is the last I'd split up, personnaly. If Toews line had played a super game like against the Russians, the game could have been 7-0 again for us. But I don't care since we dominated 50 minutes of this game anyway. As for the personal animosity towards you, maybe it could help to not go with 75% of negative posts about a national team running for the gold. Dunno, I'm a happy drinker, and when I'm tipsy and I read this board, I tend to get pissed at undeserved negativity... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 "He's President Bush, he knows how to deal with foreign affairs better than you do." YES, he certainly knows how to deal with foreign affairs better than we do. Yeesh. This I question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted February 27, 2010 Author Share Posted February 27, 2010 (edited) Yeesh. This I question. Well, for my part, I don't know much about international relashionship and foreign policies, so I'd guess anyone not involved in politic know less than Bush about this topic... Every CHL hockey player beat the crap out of me in hockey, so i'd guess every politician (as bad as they can be) should be able to beat the crap out of me in foreign affairs... Edited February 27, 2010 by JoeLassister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackp Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 Yeesh. This I question. LOL Let's bring this even further... (1939) "He's the Fuerher. He knows how to run a country better than we do." LOL And Lassiter, excuse my "negativity" but we did not play nearly as well against Slovakia as we did against Russia, and one of the reasons is that we did not have a big, dominating line causing all kinds of havoc in the opposition zone. I'm sorry, you can argue all you want, but breaking up your best line is never smart. Or maybe you're right, and Bowman should have broken up Lemaire-Shutt-Lafleur or Irvin should have changed Blake-Richard-Lach. As for my "75% negativity"... Have you been watching the same Habs team as I'm watching? Being 75% negative is kind. I am not a Maple Leafs fan. I do not accept year after miserable year of mediocrity. I do not call a GM who had 6 years to assemble a good team and has left us in a worst state than he inherited, a great GM like some of you with rose-coloured glasses have. Give me a reason to be positive, and I'll be positive. You might think struggling to hold off Slovakia was a good game, but I don't. Demolishing Russia was a great game. Why change what helped make it possible? Why go back to what didn't work before? I'll repeat: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" And I'll add, "If you do try to change what ain't broke, that's called over-coaching, aka Whitey Herzog disease." (BTW Despite my "lack of hockey acumen," I can guess why Babcock has broken up that line. He wants to add more balance to the team. Fine. He tried it. It didn't work. Now go back to what did work.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted February 27, 2010 Author Share Posted February 27, 2010 You seem to think that the win over Russia was a one line affair when the dmen combiend for 7 points and the biggest goal is Morrow from Boyle and Keith. Fine. End of discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted February 27, 2010 Author Share Posted February 27, 2010 Oh and just for the sake of it. Breaking an Olympic hockey team line vs breaking a NHL line. You must be kidding right ? OMG what are they gonna do when Getzlaf is gone and is replaced by MIKE RICHARDS ?!?!?! They're done, they just lost all chance to score a goal right ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackp Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 You seem to think that the win over Russia was a one line affair when the dmen combiend for 7 points and the biggest goal is Morrow from Boyle and Keith. Fine. End of discussion. "End of discussion" meaning you're not gonna respond. Great. Hopefully, you're not trying to control me. Read my posts more carefully. The one line was a big factor. Never did I say it was the only factor. Here are some examples of what I wrote: "... and one of the reasons is that we did not have a big, dominating line..." "I'm sure that in most hockey areas, Babcock does indeed know way more than me." "I can guess why Babcock has broken up that line. He wants to add more balance to the team." "And splitting up our most effective line is not smart." Everyone realizes hockey is a team sport, as do I. One recognizes that Shutt-Lemaire-Lafleur would not have been as effective without, Savard, Lapointe, Robinson, Dryden, et. al. But here's my question for you: would the Habs of that era been as effective had they split up the Lafleur line? Anyway, look, Joel, you're right. It's pointless to go on with this thread. We have a fundamental disagreement on this Getzlaf line idea, as I suspect we have on personal philosophy. You seem to be saying that anything Babcock does is good and based on sound ideas beyond the pale of a mere high school coach. Whereas, I constantly question everything, even if it comes from authority. Sometimes I'm wrong, and sometimes I'm actually right. In this case, I would dearly like to see the Nash-Getzlaf line put back together. I think the Americans would have a horrible time trying to contain them. And any time spent in their zone, as opposed to ours, is good... right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted February 27, 2010 Author Share Posted February 27, 2010 You're right. I just think the team is more effective with the lines Babcock used against Slovakia. This is probably where we disagree. You said : (BTW Despite my "lack of hockey acumen," I can guess why Babcock has broken up that line. He wants to add more balance to the team. Fine. He tried it. It didn't work. Now go back to what did work.) I say it worked very fine before Luongo allowed a LUCKY goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 Some observations... What the hell was Babcock doing, splitting up our best line against the Russians? He'd better have Nash and Getzlaf back together for the final. I hate when coaches pull a Whitey Herzog and over-coach. "If it ain't broken, don't fix it!!!!!" What the hell are you talking about. Kid Line of Toews, Richards and Nash lead the way for Canada Nash didn't play with Getzlaf, hasn't for the whole tournament. Nash was with Richards and Toews against Russia as our shutdown line. Kind of makes the whole little argument there a moot point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanpuck33 Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 What the hell are you talking about. Kid Line of Toews, Richards and Nash lead the way for Canada Nash didn't play with Getzlaf, hasn't for the whole tournament. Nash was with Richards and Toews against Russia as our shutdown line. Kind of makes the whole little argument there a moot point. Did they play together during the Germany game? I'm sure I remember seeing Nash play with Getzlaf during a game this tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted February 27, 2010 Share Posted February 27, 2010 Did they play together during the Germany game? I'm sure I remember seeing Nash play with Getzlaf during a game this tournament. Oh, you're right. I thought they were still playing carousel with Nash and Crosby against Germany but they weren't. Getting my games confused. Still, Nash wasn't with Getz against Russia. And both new lines were dominant in that game so why you'd split them up is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackp Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 (edited) Oh, you're right. I thought they were still playing carousel with Nash and Crosby against Germany but they weren't. Getting my games confused. Still, Nash wasn't with Getz against Russia. And both new lines were dominant in that game so why you'd split them up is beyond me. Still have it on my PVR so I'll watch it again... but not now. (I can barely stay awake long enough to watch the last period of Slovakia/Finland). Seems to me it was Getzlaf, Nash, and Perry. I seem to remember 51 and 61 buzzing around together but now you have me doubting my memory. Still, you originally said they weren't together at all, and that was wrong, so until I re-watch the Russian game, I'll suspend judgement. Edited February 28, 2010 by jackp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsniper Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Don't need to rewatch it, just read the article. That was why I went and looked for it. Nash's sole job in the Russia game was to shutdown Ovechkin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackp Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 (edited) Don't need to rewatch it, just read the article. That was why I went and looked for it. Nash's sole job in the Russia game was to shutdown Ovechkin. You are right. l stand corrected. (Though they were on the ice together sometimes. Maybe because of a line change?) My apologies to Lassiter and Ghost. I always turn off my center speaker so I don't have to listen to McGuire and the other inane announcers, and that's how I made the mistake - not having the "advantage" of listening to the commentary. (I still get the sounds of the game. It's more like actually being live at the game. Those of you who have control of your center speaker, I strongly recommend you trying this. All of my friends [save one] like this way of watching a game much better than having to listen to the announcers. And when an interesting interview comes up, you just turn the center speaker back on. Of course this only works when the broadcast is in Dolby 5.1) Edited February 28, 2010 by jackp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 LOL Let's bring this even further... (1939) "He's the Fuerher. He knows how to run a country better than we do." LOL A very loose Bush/ Hitler comparison. The die is cast! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackp Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 About an hour to go... Let's hope Luongo is up to the task... Another thought occurs to me... Has Miller ever played in a championship game at a significant level? We're all assuming he'll be his regular great self but these games sometimes bring out the worst in a goalie (ie. Kiprisoff). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTH Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 About an hour to go... Let's hope Luongo is up to the task... Another thought occurs to me... Has Miller ever played in a championship game at a significant level? We're all assuming he'll be his regular great self but these games sometimes bring out the worst in a goalie (ie. Kiprisoff). As far as I know, the biggest games he played were in the Conference Finals when the Sabres lost to Ottawa. Miller is the key of this game. I'd take Luongo ahead of him 10 times out of 10 but a hot goalie can steal any one game. There's no doubt that Canada has the better team but a dominant performance from Miller may put the ball in USA's court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 At least this year I don't have to worry about being at work a 8 AM with a hangover like in 2002. Early game has its advantages. Go :can: Go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 USA has 2 defenders in their slot with 1 defender handling Canadian forecheckers. Canada is not double teaming on the attack and they are playing too much puck possession pretty game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenadian Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Missed the opening who's reffing? both from the NHL I'm assuming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 (edited) Is Canada going to attempt one play that inspires puck player support? It might not break the US defensively but on dump ins and attacks it's all tic-tac-toe attempts. MORE SUPPORT! Edited February 28, 2010 by Athlétique.Canadien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenadian Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Everyone's forgotten the reason the US is in the final......................... Komi's was hurt and got replaced.. 1-0 Good guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 I should critisize them for all the faults I see. Support play led to a goal!!! Iffy penalty call on Ryan IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.