Quote:
Originally Posted by Phanuthier
I think CF's point was that (you?) insinuated that Iginla was put with Crosby because Iginla was doing great in the tournament, and CF was arguing that the Toews line and the Getzlaf wasn't going to be broken up because they were playing well.
Moreover, revolutionist history would be Babcock played Iginla with Crosby because Iginla was so great; in reality, Babcock was critical of Iginla's play and said he needed more 2-way play from Iginla as they had enough scorers. This is not really my opinion, but Babcock's.
|
No one is disagreeing with that though. Iginla started the tournament on a lower line, Babcock was critical of Iginla. As the tournament progressed Iginla got more time and better line mates. He and Crosby were together as the first line in the Gold Medal game.
It's odd some are putting more thought into how Iginla started the tournament then how he ended it. The posted Cliff Fletcher suggesting Iginla and Crosby were the third line for the Gold Medal game is not only revisionist history, it's downright stupid.