GDT:REVENGE! Canada VS Switzerland 5:30PM MST; CTV, FAN960

[Treach]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The loss of the point was very signicant.

Here's the format, tie breakers,etc:

http://www.iihf.com/channels10/olymp...en/format.html

Essentially the 3 group winners and a wild card get the bye. The loss of point almost guarantees we won't get seed #1 or #2 even with a win against USA. It also all but eliminates us from backing into the wild card bye spot.

To clarify an earlier comment, the winner of the game is the first tie breaker for ties within a group. So all that matters is beating US in reg or OT, or SO. Any of those gets us a #3 seed. Lose that game and the loss of point tonight, we drop way down in the quarter final seeding, and probably have to play a decent team to just make the semis.,

Honestly though, Canada are favorites going into the tournament. If we're gunning for gold, we're going to have to beat anyone. But regardless, like you said, the game against the U.S is all that really matters right now, like it would have been with the 3 points.

[CGY12]

Originally Posted by Mayer

Just because he didn't play your golden boy?

I had no problems with how Babcock coached this game. No one really looked great early on but the San Jose line. To me, Iginla didn't look great. Neither did Nash.

Babcock is one of the best coaches in the NHL. I'm still very happy he's the one behind the bench of this team.

Typical Van fan garbage response. Iginla wasn't great but he was solid and set up Crosby on numerous occasions but still found the bench most of the 3rd. If he isn't hurt that was unexcusable. The top line was completely ineffective in that 3rd period.

Would love to see your reaction if peole were saying they would have lost that game if Luongo was in net.

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by CGY12

Typical Van fan garbage response. Iginla wasn't great but he was solid and set up Crosby on numerous occasions but still found the bench most of the 3rd. If he isn't hurt that was unexcusable. The top line was completely ineffective in that 3rd period.

Would love to see your reaction if peole were saying they would have lost that game if Luongo was in net.

Thats the best you have? A Luongo shot? There are a lot of "if's" in that sentence. Luongo didn't play, and they didn't lose. What is your point?

As for Iginla, I didn't see anything early on that showed me he deserved a ton of ice time like a lot of you think. Maybe I'm just not putting as much stock into his game against Norway as some. He looked ok. I wouldn't have been disappointed had he played a regular shift with the top line, but I don't see that as being a difference tonight.

[CGY12]

Originally Posted by Mayer

Thats the best you have? A Luongo shot? There are a lot of "if's" in that sentence. Luongo didn't play, and they didn't lose. What is your point?

As for Iginla, I didn't see anything early on that showed me he deserved a ton of ice time like a lot of you think. Maybe I'm just not putting as much stock into his game against Norway as some. He looked ok. I wouldn't have been disappointed had he played a regular shift with the top line, but I don't see that as being a difference tonight.

So you missed the 3 times he set up Crosby in great scoring areas where the kid decided to make the fancy play instead of getting a shot on goal? He was the best of the 3 for the first 40 minutes. Its your Canucks goggles that won't allow you to see that which is understandable. The entire 3rd was a joke the way Babcock distributed ice time and except a couple of massive stops on Perry and Getzlaf, Hiller's stops were all routine.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Mayer

As for Iginla, I didn't see anything early on that showed me he deserved a ton of ice time like a lot of you think.

Of course you don't, you're a Canucks fan. Iggy deserved more ice time than he got tonight, any fool can see that.

And I would have been perfectly happy to see Luongo in net against the Swiss, he looked comfortable in the 1st game. Who knows we might have even won this one in regulation if Lou was in goal, I thought Marty was slightly out of position a couple of times including the 2nd goal that bounced past him, although these things happen. But Marty was very good overall especially in the shootout so I can't really complain.

[I wanna be like Miikka]

Originally Posted by Mayer

Thats the best you have? A Luongo shot? There are a lot of "if's" in that sentence. Luongo didn't play, and they didn't lose. What is your point?

As for Iginla, I didn't see anything early on that showed me he deserved a ton of ice time like a lot of you think. Maybe I'm just not putting as much stock into his game against Norway as some. He looked ok. I wouldn't have been disappointed had he played a regular shift with the top line, but I don't see that as being a difference tonight.

So you missed the cross ice pass by Iggy that sent Crosby in on a partial break. Given the hat trick in the 1st game, his play in the 1st half of this game, I think it was poor coaching to not even let him see the ice in the final 10 minutes of the 3rd and in OT.

That wasn't my only issue with the coaching. Morrow/Richards had a great shift in the 3rd, brought a lot of hits and energy and also generated some chances. Yet they barely saw the ice and instead we kept seeing Perry and Staal and other guys who just didn't seem to be going tonight. The coaching to me wasn't as good as it could have been, but that was only 1 of many problems had on the night (another problem being they are always looking for the fancy pass/play). Lets not forget that Richards has a good scoring tough to, so if he is hitting and generating chances, why not put him out there when you have 4-5 other forwards who have done nothing with extended ice-time in this game.

[Mayer]

Originally Posted by CGY12

So you missed the 3 times he set up Crosby in great scoring areas where the kid decided to make the fancy play instead of getting a shot on goal? He was the best of the 3 for the first 40 minutes. Its your Canucks goggles that won't allow you to see that which is understandable. The entire 3rd was a joke the way Babcock distributed ice time and except a couple of massive stops on Perry and Getzlaf, Hiller's stops were all routine.

No Canuck goggles here. The Canucks aren't playing games right now and Iginla plays for Team Canada, not the Flames. I'm cheering hard for him every shift he's on the ice.

He made a couple nice setups, yes. He didn't play terrible, but you guys are acting like a 3 goal game against the worst team in the tournament should propel him to 20 minutes a game.

Maybe it's your Flame goggles that are confusing this whole issue for you.

[sa226]

Originally Posted by Mayer

Thats the best you have? A Luongo shot? There are a lot of "if's" in that sentence. Luongo didn't play, and they didn't lose. What is your point?

As for Iginla, I didn't see anything early on that showed me he deserved a ton of ice time like a lot of you think. Maybe I'm just not putting as much stock into his game against Norway as some. He looked ok. I wouldn't have been disappointed had he played a regular shift with the top line, but I don't see that as being a difference tonight.

I know your reputation as probably the best non Flames fan poster, so I assume you are not trying to stir things up,

But do you seriously not see the confusion on our part.

Iginla did nothing to deserve being stapled to the bench. No he certainly didn't dominate , but nobody did. The most effective line was the SJ line.

I think our issue is that all things and all players being equal, Iginla despite his impressive resume is on a very short leash. He get bumped around when Nash who has certainly not done any more than Iginla, still gets ice time.

[OILFAN #81]

For future Olympics, I am a big fan of sending guys who play together. The Sharks line as well as the Ducks with Staal have been good. I just wish Nash-Crosby-Iginla and Morrow-Toews-Richards would stay together. Bergeron should play primarily the PK.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

For future Olympics, I am a big fan of sending guys who play together. The Sharks line as well as the Ducks with Staal have been good. I just wish Nash-Crosby-Iginla and Morrow-Toews-Richards would stay together. Bergeron should play primarily the PK.

I don't understand the Bergeron obsession by the Team Canada brass. He wasn't on anyone's list to make the team so it's almost like Yzerman and Co are trying too hard to outsmart everyone else. The guy isn't even a first liner on a lot of NHL teams and they are forcing him into the top line of Team Canada. Very strange.

[CGY12]

Originally Posted by Mayer

No Canuck goggles here. The Canucks aren't playing games right now and Iginla plays for Team Canada, not the Flames. I'm cheering hard for him every shift he's on the ice.

He made a couple nice setups, yes. He didn't play terrible, but you guys are acting like a 3 goal game against the worst team in the tournament should propel him to 20 minutes a game.

Maybe it's your Flame goggles that are confusing this whole issue for you.

Why do you suppose a player gets benched in a game? Probably for playing bad, correct? Did he play bad? Was the top line not generating chances the first 40 minutes? I can think of 3 for Crosby (all set up by Iggy) and a couple for Nash. It wasn't the only mistake Babcock made and if you read my post in the PGT you can see that. Their was no flow in the game because of all the line movement/benchings and that ultimately cost Canada a point which could be crucial. Take the goggles off please.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't understand the Bergeron obsession by the Team Canada brass. He wasn't on anyone's list to make the team so it's almost like Yzerman and Co are trying too hard to outsmart everyone else. The guy isn't even a first liner on a lot of NHL teams and they are forcing him into the top line of Team Canada. Very strange.

I think there are a lot of pride issues going on with the management and the coaches.

Trying too hard to outsmart everyone else sounds about right.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't understand the Bergeron obsession by the Team Canada brass. He wasn't on anyone's list to make the team so it's almost like Yzerman and Co are trying too hard to outsmart everyone else. The guy isn't even a first liner on a lot of NHL teams and they are forcing him into the top line of Team Canada. Very strange.

He's French and Team Canada has a quota to fill. That's the only reason he's there.

[chanimal40]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think there are a lot of pride issues going on with the management and the coaches.

Trying too hard to outsmart everyone else sounds about right.

Regher pounding some swiss through the boards would have sure looked good.

[OILFAN #81]

Originally Posted by Ark2

He's French and Team Canada has a quota to fill. That's the only reason he's there.

That's what our goaltenders are for!

[RandomDad]

I get what Mayer is trying to say and it seems you guys are not understanding it. I believe he along with me think that Iginla deserved more ice-time then he got, but he wouldn't have been the savior like all you guys are saying he was. Yes that pass to Crosby was nice, but really I think anyone on that team would have made it, no one was pressuring him at all and he had all the time in the world.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Mayer

No Canuck goggles here. The Canucks aren't playing games right now and Iginla plays for Team Canada, not the Flames. I'm cheering hard for him every shift he's on the ice.

He made a couple nice setups, yes. He didn't play terrible, but you guys are acting like a 3 goal game against the worst team in the tournament should propel him to 20 minutes a game.

Maybe it's your Flame goggles that are confusing this whole issue for you.

Honestly Mayer, if all you got is a "Flames goggles" crack, just get lost.

Think about how poor your argument is. Iginla scored three goals against Norway. He did the one thing that all six forwards who did play the last half of this game failed to do: finish. When he did play tonight, he made some good setups, which you noticed, and which Crosby (especially) fumbled.

So you are out there in a tie game, and you keep running the same six forwards out over and over and over and watch them fail over and over and over, yet a guy who's scored his entire career, played well in his limited time in this game, and scored a hat trick in the last is left on the bench?

The complaints have nothing to do with Flames bias, no matter how loudly your Canucks bias screams in your head. The complaints are entirely the result of abysmal bench management by Babcock. He's working from the Mike Keenan book of coaching: Run your favourites no matter what, and screw over everyone else, even if they are outperforming your favourites.

[Ren]

Originally Posted by RandomDad

I get what Mayer is trying to say and it seems you guys are not understanding it. I believe he along with me think that Iginla deserved more ice-time then he got, but he wouldn't have been the savior like all you guys are saying he was. Yes that pass to Crosby was nice, but really I think anyone on that team would have made it, no one was pressuring him at all and he had all the time in the world.

I think the one missing something here is you. As far as I know nobody has used the word savior, it's just mind bogglingly stupid to bench a guy who is coming off a hattrick performance for no discernible reason. Unless it's a precautionary thing stapling Iginla to the bench is simply inexcusable, especially since there were many other players getting ice time who deserved to be benched as much or more.

[CGY12]

Originally Posted by RandomDad

I get what Mayer is trying to say and it seems you guys are not understanding it. I believe he along with me think that Iginla deserved more ice-time then he got, but he wouldn't have been the savior like all you guys are saying he was. Yes that pass to Crosby was nice, but really I think anyone on that team would have made it, no one was pressuring him at all and he had all the time in the world.

and you two clearly don't see the frustration we have with that decision which is understandable considering you guys are Canucks fans. Would he have made a difference? Maybe, maybe not. That is the furthest thing from the point. You bench players that are not PLAYING WELL. All though the line didn't have a great 40 minutes, they were far from being terrible and still generated quality chances. Besides one shift in the third from Perry and Getzlaf the only line that was dangerous was the Shark line which leads to the frustration and the questions of why was Iggy taken off the top line? Why did he only see 3 shifts in the 3rd and none in OT?

[sa226]

Originally Posted by RandomDad

I get what Mayer is trying to say and it seems you guys are not understanding it. I believe he along with me think that Iginla deserved more ice-time then he got, but he wouldn't have been the savior like all you guys are saying he was. Yes that pass to Crosby was nice, but really I think anyone on that team would have made it, no one was pressuring him at all and he had all the time in the world.

I get it too and I'm not saying that had he received more ice time he would have had another hat trick. It just seems he is being unfairly singled out.

Just where do they have him on the depth chart when he can't get a regular shift?

If it was a young player that looks overwhelmed then it makes sense, but its Iginla?

If that top line isn't working, why not move Toews to his natural left side and keep Iginla on is natural right side? Instead they had Richards and Toews playing RW.