[News] USA Olympic Roster announced

[Tinordi]

To be clear, my issue isn't with Team USA not taking Ryan. It's with Burke's idiotic statement that he wished he had drafted Johnson over Ryan. If he really thinks that then that's a damning indication of his hockey knowledge.

Jack Johnson sucks and Bobby Ryan while maybe not an elite top line players is categorically the better pick.

The fact that Burke thinks otherwise is concerning for reasons I've listed above.

And wrt to Sylvanfan, yes Faulk's inclusion is puzzling as well, especially over someone like Buff, EJ or Yandle. I have Faulk in my pool so I watch him somewhat closely. He's a nice distributor, someone they'll probably play on the PP mostly but he's still very green. Definitely not a definitive improvement over those other guys.

[trackercowe]

This discussion really needs to be split into two, hard to follow both discussions at once.

[trackercowe]

Jack Johnson sucks? Okay, now who is the one making idiotic statements?

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

We already have plenty of excellent players who can put the puck in the net who aren't defensive liabilities. Pass.

None of whom, with the debatable exception of Duchene, can skate like Taylor Hall. Insisting on having everyone play selke defense is how you end up 2-2 in the third. Taking your best offensive players is the best way to ensure it's 5-2 at that point instead.

I don't like Ryan Lambert often, but his criticism of Canada's roster selection process in the context of the WJHC team rings true (though after reading that article it apparently also applies to the USA team).

If you're Hockey Canada, the organization responsible for running the national sport in what is objectively the most talented hockey nation in the world, how do you approach the building of your junior and senior national hockey teams?

If you're smart, you do it by finding the several best players at their respective positions — 15 forwards, eight defensemen, three goalies; you get the drill — and you put them on a roster together and watch them cream every opponent they came across. This was how things went when the Canadians won five WJC gold medals in a row. This is now how things go now. Hockey Canada has a funny way of running things in choosing its teams, which is to say that they try to pick players that “fit the situation” or “give the team identity” or whatever, and that's how you get Kris Draper on an Olympic team.

People who are worried about having Hall on the ice late in a close game... if it's tied in the last 5 minutes, Babcock isn't sending out Hall. He isn't sending out a lot of guys. He's sending out a steady diet of Toews and Crosby. Hall is there to run the score up in the second period so the game's never in doubt in the first place.

Especially on international ice, speed is what's hard to defend, and the weakest point on basically every team Canada will play will be their depth, especially on the blue line. That weak point must be exploited by giving the opposing coaching staff no good options. They have to play their bottom two D against someone, and if it's Crosby's line they might as well forfeit, so pick between Stamkos, St Louis and Hall, who will skate right past them, or Perry and Getzlaf, who will skate right through them, or Toews and Bergeron, in which case you're putting your worst D men with your best forwards (since that's who Toews and Bergeron are likely playing against).

What it comes down to is this. All I want from Team Canada is: at no point, do I want to feel like the guys on the ice are there so that Crosby's line can get a rest before going back out and threatening again. The opposition, especially their D, gets no minutes off. At no time do they get to think "well at least we don't have to deal with that other line". For me, the best way to do that is to bring as much elite talent as possible. The other team is facing the best player in the world in Crosby, or arguably the best pure scorer in the world in Stamkos, or a freight train in Getzlaf and Perry, or the MVP of the last olympics in Jonathan Toews, and no matter what their assignment, life sucks for them.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

I don't see Carolina too much...can someone tell me what makes Justin Faulk so special that he makes the US team without any question? From what I remember he's a reasonably smooth skater who can move the puck but by no means is an offensive dynamo. Perhaps his corsi is thru the roof and he's playing the toughest competition in the NHL to explain why his +/- is always negative.

I wonder if Burke may have overlooked that on the bigger ice the truculent game is tougher to play. Also if he had some of the Gretzky syndrome where he was reluctant to change things up in Milan and left some younger players off the roster who were playing better at the time. Defenceman like Orpik are not as effective on the bigger ice as they are in North America. Canada brought guys like Foote and Regehr to Milan and the team went it's final 3 games without scoring a goal.

On the smaller ice suface you can bring the bigger guys who are better at fighting thru space or defending close to the net. But on the larger ice I think you really need to emphasis positional play and mobility. Also not just straight ahead speed, but also agility and acceleration. A guy like St.Louis may not burn up and down the wing...but he can dart in and out of open space to make a play and with more room can have more time to make plays. Defensively a tough stay at home guy maybe doesn't have the extra step to staple Hemsky into the boards...a guy who can keep the angle and keep him to the outside and get his stick in the lanes to prevent passes to dangerous area's becomes more effective.

Faulk has elite passing skills that will exploit many defenses in this tournament. For the question marks about not taking Yandle, Faulk provides an elite level breakout.

Pairing him on the backend with a guys like Kesler and Kessel up front will be a constant worry for the opposition. The Big-Ice transition game they are clearly trying to implement could be exceedingly dangerous.

[Dagger]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

i'm willing to take my harsh criticism of burke's comments back. I thought these statements were made to the media directly, which it seems they were not.

They weren't but for a piece that really isn't supposed to be Burke centric, he's taken the lion's share of the talking point out of the piece. It's interesting that most of them are objective or at least open minded about players, or that Lombardi can compile a whole folder/video on a player only to have Burke more or less disregard any facts brought to the table just to share his own preconceived notions about the player.

The best GMs/managers all share a common trait in that they are cognizant about how to obtain or maintain a competitive advantage over the rest of their peers. Much of this just pertains to their ability to adapt and evolve to the way the game is trending, both in evaluating players and the type of style their teams play. It;s increasingly clear that Burke is not willing to change his vision for a team or how he analyzes his players. His Toronto team is doing the exact opposite that any conventional data says they should, and the team is slowly falling down the standings just like anybody who looks at shot data said they would.

I think it's interesting that at the 2011 Sloan Sports Analytics Conference at MIT there were 5 teams represented by speakers: Chicago, Washington, Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles. It's extremely telling that the aforementioned teams have won 4 of the last 5 cups and have been among the league's elite since their respective team cores have matured, and they all speak about how their teams were put together with an emphasis on statistical evaluation, but just a few weeks ago Burke is up a the podium hollering about how the blueprint he used in Anaheim is the gold standard for how the teams above and the rest of the league are trying to build their teams. It's inherently false and arrogant.

[Vulcan]

Yeah, Burke is arrogant and his claim that Anaheim's road to the cup was invented by Burke is false but now the Flames have a plan and it's a well proven plan that the Flames and others have used for success since organized hockey began.

[SuperMatt18]

Bobby Ryan not happy with the comments.

At one point he referred to the comments as "gutless."

“They were direct quotes and it’s unfortunate they feel that way,” said Ryan. “That’s their opinions and they’ve got to form a team. I guess to a certain degree you have to respect it.

“You don’t have to agree with it, right? But you could have just cut me. You didn’t have to ... Actually I almost feel degraded when it comes out like that. It is what it is. That’s their decision. That’s how they feel about it. I will remember it and use it as motivation.”

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/01/02/...burke-comments

[Machiavelli]

I feel bad for Ryan; it would be tough to see all those comments and know that a bunch of other people read them as well. It must be a bit embarrassing....hopefully he uses it as motivation like he says. He's gone through a lot so I don't think this would get him too down.

[868904]

Sure is a lot of Burke hate on this forum.

I suppose he could have had a little more "tact" with some of his comments but it's not like everything he said was wrong nor just all negative.

He noted positives of each player that they asked him about. Is he wrong to say that Ryan has no intensity? It's probably the truth. He said he was a good player, but wasn't sure if he was the right guy for a bottom 6 role.

In the position that they are in, they have to give good reasons for leaving certain players off the team. When you look at the team they selected, I can see the emphasis on work ethic and intensity. Those are intangibles that aren't measured by advanced stats. Guys like Kesler, Callahan, Backes, Brown, and Oshie are super intense players. The other wingers who were selected aren't as intense but are superior if not equal to Ryan in skill.

Flames fans should appreciate that Burke loves players with intensity and truculence because those are two things that have been sorely lacking on the Flames for years.

As for Yandle, they had guys similar to him in Faulk, Fowler, Shattenkirk, and Martin. They won't miss him.

[868904]

Burke isn't even the GM of the US team, Poile is. Not sure why he's sticking his head out on the chopping block like this. It's almost like he's taking the bullet for Poile in case the US team fails.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I really don't understand their decisions on D especially Fowler over Yandle. Orpik over Byfuglien. And Martin over EJ or JMFJ. Makes very little sense to me.

Did you read the article? The consensus among the GM committee was those guys could not be trusted defensively on the big ice in a big game.

Originally Posted by saillias

Burke's uses the "straight shooter, tells it like it is" label to act like a dick IMO.

There's being able to communicate issues in a mature manner, and then there's what Burke said. Would expect a bit more professionalism from a team President.

Originally Posted by strombad

How IS it insulting? It's insulting because he says he's not intense?

Saying a player lacks intensity is a candid, and in this case accurate, comment. But following up with 'he doesn't even know how to spell the word' is just being a d-bag for no purpose.

Burke likes the sound of his own voice. You might know the type. He's the guy at the meeting who always has to pipe up and mouth off about something just for sake of it. Or make quips and comments about what everyone else brings to the table so he can appear smarter or funnier than they are.

Look, everyone in the hockey world recognizes that Burke is a blowhard who loves the limelight. Just because he's with the Flames now doesn't mean we should pretend that's not the case because he's 'our guy.'

I don't necessarily disagree with Burke's assessments in the US olympic selection committee. But, judging from the article, the way he carries himself at these things is really unprofessional compared to his peers.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

To me this demonstrates Burke's inability to remove his biases or personal narratives about players. Lombardi makes a solid defense of Yandle in that article using real stats and experience playing against Yandle. Burke just dismisses it because he "knows better."

That's very concerning. To turn this team around we need the best hockey minds making the most informed decisions not some old time "hockey guy" going by his gut. The league has evolved considerably in the past 15 years with the best teams using all of the information available to them to make roster decisions. The margin of error is so slim that we afford to be rolling the dice. We need to be informed with data and impartiality on what makes success (possession and skill) not some bygone adherence to a narrative about "size" and "intensity."

The thing that concerns me is his mocking of Lombardi for preparing detailed briefs of the bubble players. Like Burke knows all that stuff already just from watching a few games and trusting his instincts. I was really hoping our next GM would the thorough, forward-thinking, studious type like Lombardi or Poile. I'm concerned that even if Burke hires that kind of guy for the GM position, he'll override most of the GM's assessments with his bluster and ego.

[Tinordi]

I think that you're going to see a very swift and decisive change in how teams are managed in the next five years with an overwhelming movement toward statistical analysis, data, and scouting. It's already happening. The egg head managers are already emerging or are employing people to make that analysis for them. I think that managers will either need to adapt their methods or see themselves become the victims of the new style of management. That's why I'm concerned. Relying on your intuition, gut, or some narrative you've built for yourself of what a successful team makes only makes you chum for the sharks.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Bobby Ryan not happy with the comments.


http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/01/02/...burke-comments

Ryan's beef should be with Burnside for writing the article or for USA hockey for allowing him to listen in on the meetings, but I see no reason for him to be mad at Burke.

[Husky]

Pretty dumb not to take Ryan. Guy is a goal scoring machine and hes yet to hit his prime. Other than Kane and Kessel, not one player in that forward ranks has consistenyl put of the goals Ryan has for quite sometime.

I hope Ryan becomes a Candian citizen and plays for the next Canadian team.

[dustygoon]

Any chance that Burke comments are taken out of context? He is the kind of guy that is straight up with praise as he is with criticism (eg out of the blue says Cam Ward would be good goalie for Canada).

The article is poorly written and reads like my notes that I took in social studies in grade 10.

But what do you expect from Burnside who is at best a B-list reporter. He will forever be on Burke's craplist.

And how did ESPN get the call to be the fly on the wall for this article anyway? NBC can't be happy about that.

[SuperMatt18]

There was praise from Burke in the article too, but the bad always will overshadow the good.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I think that you're going to see a very swift and decisive change in how teams are managed in the next five years with an overwhelming movement toward statistical analysis, data, and scouting. It's already happening. The egg head managers are already emerging or are employing people to make that analysis for them. I think that managers will either need to adapt their methods or see themselves become the victims of the new style of management. That's why I'm concerned. Relying on your intuition, gut, or some narrative you've built for yourself of what a successful team makes only makes you chum for the sharks.

Story Time:

I coached soccer for several years, the club I coached for in Calgary had a affiliation with a Premier League club in England and sent us their reserve team coach for a week to teach us coaches how to coach.

I learned a lot. I also spent 2 days in statistical information sessions.

I've taken several statistics classes during the course of my University education and, hell, I'm a sports fan so who doesnt love statistics? But this was ridiculous.

So, every time I see statements like this I chuckle a little bit, the 'answer' isnt 'Moneyball' or 'Trouble With the Curve,' its being able to know which statistics are relevant statistics and combine that with a knowledge of what you're applying those statistics to.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Stats cannot teach you how to build a winning team. Burke has a lot of experience building teams. I'd take him over a stats guru every day of the week.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Locke

Story Time:

I coached soccer for several years, the club I coached for in Calgary had a affiliation with a Premier League club in England and sent us their reserve team coach for a week to teach us coaches how to coach.

I learned a lot. I also spent 2 days in statistical information sessions.

I've taken several statistics classes during the course of my University education and, hell, I'm a sports fan so who doesnt love statistics? But this was ridiculous.

So, every time I see statements like this I chuckle a little bit, the 'answer' isnt 'Moneyball' or 'Trouble With the Curve,' its being able to know which statistics are relevant statistics and combine that with a knowledge of what you're applying those statistics to.

More important than accumulating vast amount of analytic data is deciphering what data points are relevant and which aren't. Totally agree.

It's facile to say Burke dismisses analytics of comprehensive statistically based analysis.

For all of the hand-wringing about Burke in this thread about stats and Lombardi's presentation, no one else in that group felt Yandle or Ryan were worth taking, even in a reserve role. Maybe it says something when the clubs having representation at advanced analytics conferences come to the same conclusion as someone who did not necessarily utilize them to come to the same conclusion.