AHL- Apolyton Hockey League III-- Olympic edition

[Ben Kenobi]

1. that a player is at fault for getting blindsided when he doesn't have the puck or

No, not at all. The player is at fault for a 0 shot, pointless night.

2. that a player on a weaker team team is incapable of such a blindside. Damn you obviously never saw a senior B, junior B or lower level pro game. and those folks had enough size and strength to injure even elite NHL Players

I'm not saying it at all. I'm saying, Iggy was obviously shaken up by the hit. I'm speculating that he was concussed given his poor performance, and the fact that Babcock benched him. I'm not going to be convinced that he's truly ok, until the game tomorrow, and we get a chance to see how he can do.

[Asher]

3. What stat or evidence do you have of that PK amazingness other than the fact that you said so.

Burrows was the star (along with Kesler), of a number one powerplay unit back in 2007.

I nearly spit my coffee at the screen, but I was prepared for anything...classic Ben.

Fine, lets use how Burrows played in 2006-2007 as a metric for his Olympic contention. He was a good PKer with 9 points in 81 games and a -7.

When I said that there was a gap of 1 point, which has widened a bit.

You are an unabashed liar. You said this once when there was a gap of 1 point, and you said it again the other day when the gap was much bigger. You were corrected on it the first time, then the gap widened, and you continued making the claim. No other excuse other than you are a liar, Ben. Why do you hate Jesus?

[Ben Kenobi]

I nearly spit my coffee at the screen, but I was prepared for anything...classic Ben.

Are you suggesting that anything in that statement is untrue? Look it up.

No other excuse other than you are a liar, Ben.

I firmly believe he'll better whatever Iginla's numbers are at the end of the year.

[Asher]

I laughed because you are using a single season's performance in a single portion of the game from four seasons ago -- one where he was abysmal otherwise with only 9 points and a -7 rating -- to justify your claims about why he should be on the Olympic team. It's ****ing epicly retarded.

[Asher]

I firmly believe he'll better whatever Iginla's numbers are at the end of the year.

We'll make a bet right now.

If Iginla has more points by the end of the regular season, you will never, ever post in any hockey thread ever again on this site, nor will you try to discuss or even mention hockey in any thread in any forum on this site. Ever.
If Burrows has more points, I'll do the same.

CAVEATS: If either player becomes injured or otherwise misses more than 3 games, the bet is off.

[Fve Crathva]

Canada should have brought in Mason Raymond instead of Drew Doughty.

SP

[Asher]

Mason Raymond was terrific on the PK on his junior team, it's true.

[Ben Kenobi]

I laughed because you are using a single season's performance in a single portion of the game from four seasons ago -- one where he was abysmal otherwise with only 9 points and a -7 rating -- to justify your claims about why he should be on the Olympic team. It's ****ing epicly retarded.

And you are using a single performance from 8 years ago to defend yours. 8 years is a long time. Going back to your other stat, are you suggesting that Johnson and Kesler are poor penalty killers?

[Ben Kenobi]

If Iginla has more points by the end of the regular season, you will never, ever post in any hockey thread ever again on this site, nor will you try to discuss or even mention hockey in any thread in any forum on this site. Ever.

If Burrows has more points, I'll do the same.

Deal.

CAVEATS: If either player becomes injured or otherwise misses more than 3 games, the bet is off.

Whatsamatta? Chicken? Buck buck buck buck buck buckawk!

[Flubber]

And you are using a single performance from 8 years ago to defend yours.

1. No-- Asher and I are not relying only or mainly on a single performance 8 years ago. 2002 was Iggy's eruption into prominence. He was very good throughout the tourney. There was a reason Iggy was on the ice at key moments in the gold medal game. But my argument is not that he did it in 2002 so he must be on the team. Asher and I raised 2002 to refute your obvioulsy false claim that Iggy had not done anything of significance on the international stage. 2002 is relevant to this times selection but its part of the whole package.

2. The argument for Iggy goes like this

-averaged over 90 points the last 3 seasons
-57 points this season (and yes he has been VERY streaky this year but when he was hot he was the most torrid scorer in the game)
- an acknowledged leader on his club
- a hard checker and hard worker who wiill work hard on the defensive side of things
-- still one of the best Canadian shooters in the game -- despite a long painful slump he is 5th among Canadian goalscorers
- gets along well with others== ie personable and positive "in the room"
- has attended two other Olympics (given the number of younger guys who were absolutely making the team,it is good to have a sprinkling of guys who have been there before.)

3. You can nitpick some of above in your arguments and point out
-that Stamkos has more goals and points and St Louis has more points
- Other younger players come close to Iggy's goal and point production etc etc and I am sure you will continue to do so but the simple fact is that you cannot dispute Iggys numbers, how he is viewed by other players or his experience. Those are the reasons he was an automatic on everybody's list for the team.

4. I don't expect Iggy will be Canada's best player. Crosby should be the main on ice leader. What I expect of Iggy is that he will be a great influence in the room and that he will play hard and be a team contributor on the ice. The hat-trick? Very nice and actually he was a key at the time. After the Turin team-wide inability to score you know they were on pins and needles and after going scoreless for a period against Norway they were starting to get a bit tight. So ya it was "only" Norway but any goal in a 0-0 game in the second period is important and Iggy scored it.

Against the Swiss? They quickly took Iggy off the Nash-Crosby line and have now tried 4 different players there ( for a few shifts each) which suggests its more about trying to get the other 2 going than anything about Iggy. I was surprised they had moved so quickly away from Iggy on that line given how successful it was against Norway.

Oh and I expected Iggy wouldn't play much against the Swiss after the head shot. The game wasn't that important in the greater scheme of things and with ample talent across the line-up I doubt he would have played Crosby or getzlaf after such a head-shot in a preliminary match either (or Toews, Doughty, Seabrook or Morrow)

5. I found it hilarious that you totally discounted a freaking hat-trick and then slam a pointless effort (from a player who was essentially benched for precautionary reasons).

[Flubber]

Whatsamatta? Chicken? Buck buck buck buck buck buckawk!

Ben -- it speaks volumes that you wouldn't care if the bet were determined on actual merit

[Pekka]

Come on guys, can we just forget about this whole Burrows debate?

There's good games tonight, Russia vs. Czechs, USA vs. Canada and Finland vs. Sweden.

My prediction for tonight:
1. Russia
2. Canada
3. Finland (of course!)

[Flubber]

Come on guys, can we just forget about this whole Burrows debate?

I am not talking about Burrows anymore. I don't think I mentioned him once in my last post as ben's arguments are obviously painfully weak as has been demonstrated repeatedly.

I was talking Iggy. Since Canada is stacked with a depth of talent,it is possible to examine the inclusion of almost any player and be critical of it. Heck, the entire "Shark Line' were not guaranteed this year. At camp , they were all maybes. Even now, some may question their inclusion since the Sharks have not exaxctly stepped up in past playoffs despite being heavily favored many many times. I find the debate interesting.

But you are right-- the team is selected and playing so its time to look to the future. For some reason I agree with you picking canada today. While I have not been awed by them, I just somehow feel Canada will play well and win

[Pekka]

I am not talking about Burrows anymore. I don't think I mentioned him once in my last post as ben's arguments are obviously painfully weak as has been demonstrated repeatedly.

I was talking Iggy. Since Canada is stacked with a depth of talent,it is possible to examine the inclusion of almost any player and be critical of it. Heck, the entire "Shark Line' were not guaranteed this year. At camp , they were all maybes. Even now, some may question their inclusion since the Sharks have not exaxctly stepped up in past playoffs despite being heavily favored many many times. I find the debate interesting.

But you are right-- the team is selected and playing so its time to look to the future. For some reason I agree with you picking canada today. While I have not been awed by them, I just somehow feel Canada will play well and win

Well they have a better team and they are rivals, it brings up emotions and people are fired up. It means that all the earlier lackluster is gone. I'm not saying USA has a bad team, but they haven't been able to play to their true potential either. It can go either way, but I'd put my money on Canada. I think USA depends too much on Miller and Kane. Then again, that's a pretty strong weaponry right there.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben -- it speaks volumes that you wouldn't care if the bet were determined on actual

Injuries are a part of the game. I play fantasy, and you don't get a 'do-over' because of injury.

Asher can man up and accept this, or he can live in his pretend world where no one gets hurt.

3 games? Asher's obviously not interested in doing this, so why play at all?