Canada declares war on Switzerland

[Asher]

Dumb ****.

[Serb]

I notice they each have eyebrows too. How did I miss that?

Great! We are going somewhere. Now look at the shape of their noses for example.

[Asher]

They are strikingly similar. They start out narrow at the top then flare out, with two holes at the bottom. I can't believe I've not noticed this before.

[Serb]

u r hopeless. Forget it.

[Flubber]

It's these things called lines.



Thank you! That is all I am saying, Crosby made the goal happen because of his quick release.

and Iggy equally made it happen with his very good pass in a difficult circumstance (i.e a guy draped over him and another in the passing lane). Discounting the pass in a circumstance where a person shoots and scores within 2 seconds of receipt of said pass is idiiotic.

[Flubber]

Over St. Louis? I think St. Louis would have been more productive.

So ben now your argument is that a guy that, for whatever reason, was not chosen for the team, would have outscored or outproduced or whatever the guy who was actually there and led the tournament in goals?

For the record

1. I have it on good authority that St Louis got zero points in the Olympics.

2. With the benefit of hindsight you could say no Bergeron and replace him with a st Louis or whomever else you want. Bergeron did not do that well in the face off dot (50% even) and I seem to recall he had the worst plus/minus on the team. (only minus 2 but considering how little he played an amazing feat nontheless)


Ben so lets sum up


Iggy leads the tourney in goals and 6th in points
Iggy was a key person and made a very good and undoubtedly key play on the gold medal winning goal
Iggy was well up there in plus minus (only Toews was a better forward on Canada on plus minus)
Iggy took the body and played solid defence AND
Iggy is an acknowledged leader "in the room" for a team that faced some adversity and yet pulled through to ultimate success-- The way the whole team dominated in OT after that crushing tying goal very late is a credit to them all and in particular the leaders


These are all facts that you cannot dispute. You can quibble about good goals or important goals or fantasize how a line of Carter, Burrows and St Louis may have done . . but thats all they are fantasies and quibbles. All the things listed above are FACTS.

I thought even you might admit you were wrong-- but hey -- I guess you are not being serious.

[Flubber]

Oh come on. They have something in common.

All I see is the same intense stare at times but I see that in lots of athletes

[Ben Kenobi]

Discounting the pass in a circumstance where a person shoots and scores within 2 seconds of receipt of said pass is idiiotic.

It wasn't like the earlier goal where the pass from behind the net put the player wide open. As you remarked, that shot was only a goal because of Crosby's quick release. Yes, Iggy helped, but his pass didn't put Crosby wide open.

[Ben Kenobi]

So ben now your argument is that a guy that, for whatever reason, was not chosen for the team, would have outscored or outproduced or whatever the guy who was actually there and led the tournament in goals?

My argument is that St. Louis would have been more productive in the exact same position. Same with Nash, Sharp, and Perry. As Iggy is not the 4th best right winger that Team Canada possessed, he should not have been on the team.

2. With the benefit of hindsight you could say no Bergeron and replace him with a st Louis or whomever else you want. Bergeron did not do that well in the face off dot (50% even) and I seem to recall he had the worst plus/minus on the team. (only minus 2 but considering how little he played an amazing feat nontheless)

I don't care about Bergeron, who never should have been on the team at all. I care about St. Louis, Nash, Perry and Sharp.

Iggy leads the tourney in goals and 6th in points

With 0 goals coming against teams that were a significant threat to Team Canada. This shows that decent teams were able to effectively contain the Crosby line with Iggy on it. This includes the Russian game where 7 goals were scored, none by Iggy.

Iggy was a key person and made a very good and undoubtedly key play on the gold medal winning goal

Yet was a complete non-factor in getting there. Why is Iggy's role greater then say Toews?

Iggy is an acknowledged leader "in the room" for a team that faced some adversity and yet pulled through to ultimate success-- The way the whole team dominated in OT after that crushing tying goal very late is a credit to them all and in particular the leaders

Completely unverifiable. Certified 'Iggy power' TM.

These are all facts that you cannot dispute. You can quibble about good goals or important goals or fantasize how a line of Carter, Burrows and St Louis may have done . . but thats all they are fantasies and quibbles. All the things listed above are FACTS.

And the fact is that Iggy, 'Canada's greatest goalscorer' scored 0 goals in games against highly ranked teams. Fortunately the rest of team canada picked up the slack and carried the team.

[Drake Tungsten]

Iginla deserves the credit for that goal in OT, not Crosby. That pass was great.

[Ben Kenobi]

People who earned a slot on Team Canada and impressed me, any of whom were not on the team, Canada would not have won:

Toews, Heatley, Nash, Getzlaf, Perry, Neidermayer, Weber, Doughty, Luongo.

People who did ok but could have been replaced with other players without loss to team Canada:

Crosby, Marleau, Staal, Seabrook, Pronger, Keith, Boyle, Richards, Iggy.

People who disappointed

Morrow, Bergeron, Thornton, Brodeur.

The 'thanks for coming award'

Fleury.

[Sparrowhawk]

If Team Canada had lost to say Germany in the qualification round, to Russia in the quarterfinals, or even to Slovakia in the Semi-finals, I think millions in Canada and elsewhere would join in the debate of who should be on Team Canada, if they had lost to the US in the Gold medal game, many still would question.

However, Canada won gold with the team that was there, so I hope everyone (including you) acknowledges that Canada had a Gold Medal winning team, and any other combination might not have won gold. That fact alone (and it is a fact that we won gold) should be enough to stop the debate.

I would rather debate how soon Yzerman should replace Bettman as Commissioner of the league (and I am only half joking when I say that).

They won, if they could have picked different players, perhaps they still would have won, or maybe not, maybe they would have taken a different route, maybe not.....bottom line we will never know for sure. We do know for sure that the lineup they had resulted in a gold medal and that was the goal.....I for one am not going to question further.

[action=Sparrowhawk][/action]

[Flubber]

Why is Iggy's role greater then say Toews?

.

On the winning goal because Iggy did it and Toews didn't. In getting there Toews was undoubtedly one of if not Canada's best player (in the gold medal game or elsewhere) as was evidenced by his elevation to the All-Star team.

Completely unverifiable. Certified 'Iggy power' TM.

.

verifiable "A" on the jersey
verifiable two wins in tough one goal games

Unverifiable to us is the role that any given player had in settling and leading the team in the room


As for all the rest- meh-- Iggy played all the same teams as the rest of his team with no appreciably greater ice time of PP time that 2 other full lines of them and ended up with among the best stats. If he had another hattrick against the Swiss and they won 6-2 or something as a result , you would have just claimed more meaningless goals against an inferior opponent. Or maybe switched to claiming the entire RR portion was irrelevent . If he had scored against Russia you would say that Nabakov sucked or probably claim any goal after 4-1 was meaningless or something.

[Flubber]

That fact alone (and it is a fact that we won gold) should be enough to stop the debate.

[action=Sparrowhawk][/action]

Good luck with that. We cannot even get Ben to acknowldege that Iggy deserved to be on the team even when he scored the most goals, was up there in plus minus and contributed on the tourney winning goal.

[Ben Kenobi]

If Team Canada had lost to say Germany in the qualification round, to Russia in the quarterfinals, or even to Slovakia in the Semi-finals, I think millions in Canada and elsewhere would join in the debate of who should be on Team Canada, if they had lost to the US in the Gold medal game, many still would question.

And that's my point. Canada very nearly lost to Slovakia. Where was Iggy? He was worthless in that game, and worthless against the Russians. Sure, it's great if he's the 7th and 8th goal against Germany, but that doesn't have an impact on the bottom line.

However, Canada won gold with the team that was there, so I hope everyone (including you) acknowledges that Canada had a Gold Medal winning team, and any other combination might not have won gold. That fact alone (and it is a fact that we won gold) should be enough to stop the debate.

I think we can still argue who was and who was not effective even if we won a gold medal. I don't believe Yzerman was flawless in his selection.

They won, if they could have picked different players, perhaps they still would have won, or maybe not, maybe they would have taken a different route, maybe not.....bottom line we will never know for sure. We do know for sure that the lineup they had resulted in a gold medal and that was the goal.....I for one am not going to question further.

Fair enough, I respect that. However, I ask you to respect my opinion the same way. Just because you believe the issue is 'settled' doesn't in any way require me to agree with you. You guys are the folks all butthurt that I'm questioning Iggy's role on the team. That's your problem, not mine. If it truly is a settled issue, why do you care so much about defending him?