AHL- Apolyton Hockey League III-- Olympic edition

[Flubber]

Iggy is a RW, Burrows is a LW. .

Wow-- you spend weeks pointing out how "Iggy took Burrows spot" (demonstrably false by the way) but NOW you are saying somehow they are different positions and therefore should be considered for different spots? You do realize that Daniel Sedin is a LW right?

I'm not surprised he didn't because this is his break-out season and the Olympics are more about recognition of players who have performed well over the years.


.

Nope -- ask St Louis, Smyth and Lecavalier-- Hockey Canada was demonstrably willing to consider young breakout players--

Yeah, and Iggy is God incarnate and the best player on Canada. Let's make a different bet then. Iggy won't be the top performing Canadian by the time the games are done.

Straight up. Is this a deal?

I'm not asher but that would be a stupid bet for him to make. Leaving aside the question of how you measure top performer (I'm sure you had points in mind but there are lots of other things-- faceoffs, PK. shootout ability), Neither Asher nor I have said that Iggy is Canada's best player. In fact I will say clearly that he is not. I think Canada's most talented/best player right now is Sid the Kid and I will feel that way even if some other player on Team Canada has more points in this tourney.

The question was whether Iggy deserves to be on the Olympic team. The answer is undoubtedly yes according to hockey canada and every pundit and critic I read that predicted or analyzed this team. And for those that may have doubted him, he goes out and scores THREE nice goals. yes it was "only" Norway but Canada hadn't scored at all for 20 minutes and when the team needed a jump, he provided the spark and got them going. I'd still feel he deserved to be there even if he hadn't scored at all that game though.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Burrows was not invited to the training camp for the team

And given his performance, he should have been.

2. Among right-wingers Martin St Louis was the leading scorer in the league and did not make the team.

This is why I am arguing that the Iggy choice was sentimental, and not based on his performance. I'm glad you can see my point here, by pointing out Martin St. Louis.

3. A player was added who was not at camp-- Patrice Bergeron

A player with 37 points as a center and a minus one. Are you arguing that Bergeron was a better addition than Burrows?

4. Many names were mentioned as other players or alternates-- I saw no mention of Burrows anywhere

You're hearing it here. Burrows has earned a spot based on his performance this year.

5. Burrows is so OBVIOUS a choice that when a Toronto Sun writer AND an NHL digest writer separately suggested a second team with 13 forwards --it did NOT include Burrows

Jeff Carter - 27/25 = 52
Shane Doan - 17/30 = 47
Martin St. Louis - 22/49 = 71, an obvious snub from Team Canada, who is far more deserving than Iginla.
Mike Cammalleri - 26/22 = 48
Mike Fisher - 20/24 = 44
John Tavares - 17/17 = 34
Patrick Sharp - 19/32 = 51
Ryan Smyth - 19/19 = 38
Jordan Staal - 16/23 = 39

Now, lets look at Burrows.

26/25 = 51 and a whopping + 28.

I don't know whomever wrote that crappy article, but Burrows is better than Doan, Cammalleri, Fisher, Tavares, Sharpe, Smyth and Staal. He and Jeff Carter are about even.

Compared with the real team:

Bergeron - 37 points (C)
Morrow - 33 points (LW)
Richards - 46 points (C)
Staal - 50 points (C)
Toews - 49 points (C)

Crosby - 78 points (C)
Getzlaf - 61 points (C)
Heatley - 66 points (LW)
Iginla - 57 points (RW)
Marleau - 64 points (C)
Nash - 57 points (RW)
Perry - 59 points (RW)
Thornton - 75 points (C)

My team:

Heatley - Crosby - St. Louis
Burrows - Thornton - Nash
Carter - Marleau - Perry
Toews - Getzlaf - Sharp

Staal as the extra.

I'd leave off Richards, Morrow, Bergeron and Iginla.

I'd Add, Carter, Sharp, Burrows, St. Louis

[Asher]

The question was whether Iggy deserves to be on the Olympic team. The answer is undoubtedly yes according to hockey canada and every pundit and critic I read that predicted or analyzed this team. And for those that may have doubted him, he goes out and scores THREE nice goals. yes it was "only" Norway but Canada hadn't scored at all for 20 minutes and when the team needed a jump, he provided the spark and got them going. I'd still feel he deserved to be there even if he hadn't scored at all that game though.

I'm ignoring Ben on the rest of this issue. It's unfathomably stupid.

But as for the "only Norway" excuse...the US is only up 3-1 on Norway right now. They're playing pretty good hockey. Canada was 0-0 until Iginla went from 2 minutes in the 1st period on the 4th line to 6 minutes in the 2nd period on the 1st line.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not asher but that would be a stupid bet for him to make.

Silence speaks volumes. Let's lay off this crap that Iggy is an obvious choice to make the team.

In his position, Perry, St. Louis, and Nash are all better RW. If you want to use a spot for a young gun, bring up Patrick Sharp to play with Toews.

Iginla is by no means a first ballot.

On the LW, you have Carter/Burrows and Toews. All either comparable players or a young gun. Heatley is a first ballot selection. Iginla is not.

Leaving aside the question of how you measure top performer (I'm sure you had points in mind but there are lots of other things-- faceoffs, PK. shootout ability),

PLUS MINUS! Burrows if you are considering things other than points, is superior to whatever you'll find on the Canadian team. He's plus 25. He plays better on the PK than anyone else there. Intangibles are not a good argument to keep him off.

The question was whether Iggy deserves to be on the Olympic team. The answer is undoubtedly yes according to hockey canada and every pundit and critic I read that predicted or analyzed this team.

Pointswise, if your goal is to use young players, Iggy is the 5th best Canadian at his position. Therefore, you have to sacrifice the up and comers to give him a spot.

If your goal is to give the oldies another kick at the can, then give it to Iginla.

I'd still feel he deserved to be there even if he hadn't scored at all that game though.

Then performance doesn't matter. Just IGGY POWER TM.

Thanks for being honest here.

[Ben Kenobi]

But as for the "only Norway" excuse...the US is only up 3-1 on Norway right now. They're playing pretty good hockey. Canada was 0-0 until Iginla went from 2 minutes in the 1st period on the 4th line to 6 minutes in the 2nd period on the 1st line.

Sounds like he was a stretch pick to me. Illuminating that you finally admit that Iginla is not considered one of the highlights of the team.

Hmm, oddly no credit to Luongo for his shutout either. I wonder why?

Looks like I win my bet. Luongo is starting in the Olympics.

[Asher]

Sounds like he was a stretch pick to me. Illuminating that you finally admit that Iginla is not considered one of the highlights of the team.

Hmm, oddly no credit to Luongo for his shutout either. I wonder why?

Looks like I win my bet. Luongo is starting in the Olympics.

He's not. Brodeur is starting tonight. Brodeur is getting the tougher team than Luongo (the Swiss beat Canada last time 2-0...). That says more than who started first.

They're both getting starts, but Brodeur got the tougher team. You did not "win" a bet (that I'm pretty sure never occurred to begin with).

I've also never said Iginla is a "highlight of the team". You ****ing douchebag. Jesus ****ing Christ, WORST CHRISTIAN EVER. You can't even say innocuous things without LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.

As for your other post, your stupidity genuinely obviously enrages me. Do you understand how stupid you are, or do you just think you are misunderstood? Jesus Christ. Shut your mouth.

[Flubber]

Iggy is the last holdover from the gold-medal winning team. How is this a lie? Yes, I got the year wrong (should have been 2002), but that's different from a lie..

Well you actually got the fact wrong too unless you meant your statement to only apply to forwards. Niedermeyer, Pronger and Brodeur ring any bells for you? But again yiour statement wasn't a lie-- it was either mistaken or misleading but then again thats true of most of what you write, isn't it ??

[Ben Kenobi]

Well you actually got the fact wrong too unless you meant your statement to only apply to forwards. Niedermeyer, Pronger and Brodeur ring any bells for you? But again yiour statement wasn't a lie-- it was either mistaken or misleading but then again thats true of most of what you write, isn't it ??

Well that is the topic of this discussion, no? Forward lines of the Canadian olympic team?

[Flubber]

Hmm, oddly no credit to Luongo for his shutout either. I wonder why?

Looks like I win my bet. Luongo is starting in the Olympics.

LOLOL-- You are funny. Iggy scores 3 goals and it seems it doesn't matter to you since it was only Norway.

Luongo? He is an elite keeper and a very good #2 or #1A for Canada. If Brodeur falters at all, in he goes. But with respect to keepers it is downright obvious that Brodeur remains the presumptive #1. Brodeur gets the tougher game. If he plays well he will get the US game too and will continue for as long as he does well. If he falters and plays poorly against the Swiss, the job will be Luongo's for as long as he plays well.

Luongo's shutout was nice but 15 shots is hardly a great workout. There were maybe 3 tough chances. Full credit to him though-- he did his job in stellar fashion against an inferior opoonent (something like Iginla )


Oh and as for the IGGY TM bullcrap --- what I am saying is that Iggy is a solid Olympic level player. If he has one great game or one poor game, that doesn't change that. I think you will find he will be just fine and will do his job quite well over the course of the Olympics.

Lastly -- Plus minus--

The highest four canadian born players with respect to plus minus are

Jeff Schultz
Alex Burrows
Mike Green
and Mike Knuble

Why oh why were none of these players picked? (actually I would have picked Green but thats another story.) Is it maybe because plus-minus is more a reflection of who you play for than anything else?

[Ben Kenobi]

He's not. Brodeur is starting tonight. Brodeur is getting the tougher team than Luongo (the Swiss beat Canada last time 2-0...). That says more than who started first.

Then you admit that the last game was a meaningless warmup?

They're both getting starts, but Brodeur got the tougher team. You did not "win" a bet (that I'm pretty sure never occurred to begin with).

Well, yes, because you refused to step up.

I've also never said Iginla is a "highlight of the team". You ****ing douchebag. Jesus ****ing Christ, WORST CHRISTIAN EVER. You can't even say innocuous things without LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.

It's called paraphrasing. Look it up sometime.

[Ben Kenobi]

Iginla's playing with Crosby and Nash. **** that's dangerous.

Crosby, Iggs, and Nash

I daresay you are making the pun with Crosby, Stills, Nash, all of them superstar rockers.

So if Crosby, Stills and Nash are 'highlights', what does that make Iggy?

You think I just used that term at random?

[Ben Kenobi]

You are funny. Iggy scores 3 goals and it seems it doesn't matter to you since it was only Norway.

I don't care about the game. I consider it a meaningless warmup. I just find it funny that it takes cosmic significance when Iggy scores 3, but not when Luongo nets a shutout.

Oh and as for the IGGY TM bullcrap --- what I am saying is that Iggy is a solid Olympic level player.

Do 'solid' olympic players start on the 4th line?

If he has one great game or one poor game, that doesn't change that. I think you will find he will be just fine and will do his job quite well over the course of the Olympics.

We shall see.

Why oh why were none of these players picked? (actually I would have picked Green but thats another story.) Is it maybe because plus-minus is more a reflection of who you play for than anything else?

Why was Iggy picked over the obviously superior Martin St. Louis? I'd like you to explain that one to me. Iggy's a good player, yes, but is he really the best we could do at RW? I'd argue to the contrary.

I think the Canadian team has too many centres, and not enough wingers. Why Burrows is not playing over all the mediocre centres like Bergeron?

[Flubber]

Well that is the topic of this discussion, no? Forward lines of the Canadian olympic team?

-- its just you tried to make it sound as if Iggy was the last ancient old fart left over from 2002. Since 1/3 of the goalies and 2/7 of the defence are back from that team its not like he's some sort of unusual antique or something.

To me the proportion 8 years later seems about right . I would expect in any 8 year period that you would see significant turnover.

As for what the topic of discussion is?? With you Ben I am never sure- All i know is that you will pull bald assertions out of your azz without regard tio facts or reason and completely ignore any contrary facts. I usually take a perverse pleasure in engaging you but it seems I am hitting my limits. So I amy engage more or I may do what I do when a mentally handicapped person spouts incomprehensible gibberish and appears to expect a response-- nod and smile politely

[Ben Kenobi]

its just you tried to make it sound as if Iggy was the last ancient old fart left over from 2002.

Well of course. He is ancient.

I usually take a perverse pleasure in engaging you but it seems I am hitting my limits.

Ok. I've been having fun too. I enjoy sparring over hockey. The obnoxious flames just add to it all.

[Flubber]

Its like crack--

.


Do 'solid' olympic players start on the 4th line?

yes-- By definition slightly more than 1/4 of forwards start on the 4th line or as the "extra forward"

.

Why was Iggy picked over the obviously superior Martin St. Louis? I'd like you to explain that one to me. Iggy's a good player, yes, but is he really the best we could do at RW? I'd argue to the contrary.

I think the Canadian team has too many centres, and not enough wingers. Why Burrows is not playing over all the mediocre centres like Bergeron?

THis is a very different discussion which would have nothing to do with Burrows. IT actually has two parts--1. Who else do you think SHOULD be on team Canada and then 2. who would you drop for them? I could make arguments for Stamkos and St Louis being on the team for example based on scoring numbers... .. At the end of the day its a mugs game though. Team Canada chose its elite players and then looked to fill roles using criteria not always apparent to the casual observer. For example they wanted good face-off men for both dots in the defensive zone-- they wanted right and left point shots, they wanted some shootout specialists, some PK guys, some guys to throw the body--

If you asked 20 GMs you would probably get 20 different teams. I haven't analyzed why Bergeron is there but team Canada obviously saw something-- He is 8th in the league in faceoff winning %-- Maybe that was what they wanted if they could get it in an otherwise decent forward. Beregeron shoots right while Toews,Crosbie (both good at faceoffs), Marleau and Thornton (both decent in the 53% range)all shoot left . Getzlaf shoots right but is less than 50% in the face-off circle

All I know for certain was they did NOT want the top 13 offensive forwards to be the team -- for the simple reason that once you have your top 6 or 8, you HAVE the guys that you will be playing when you need a goal. Its nonsense to just have mor and more scorers. The remainder of the team is trying to find guys that can fill very specific roles. The reality is that with 3 minutes to go and your team down a goal, the 7th and 8th best scorers (from the coach's perspective) are not getting on the ice.