Team Canada roster -- Fisher got jobbed

Gohan wrote:

Devo wrote:Wow...8 players from non playoff teams...that astounds me. I realize some are veterans like Pronger and Neidermayer, but one would think players having good seasons would be something they would want.

I understand the decision for having Richards over Fisher, but i personally would rather have a player who is having a good season on the team, versus having someone having a bad year. It just doesn't make sense to me to put players who are under achieving on the team.

But I guess others would rather gamble that a player will break out and return to form during the 7 games in the tournament. Me I'd rather take the players who are performing well going in, to me it makes sense that they will maintain their current level of play rather than hoping a guy who is playing poorly changes his.

The issue with that though is the need to match skill with skill. I would have loved Fisher to play in the tourny because it would force him to the wing, where we all know he'd excel; but having the most skilled players all together can truly get people out of a so-called slump. Fisher has fought his whole career to reach 50 points. Richards should be a ppg player for the rest of his career...and he's young. If you have a choice between two players, both producing at roughly the same clip, both with similar attributes, and one with 5 years on the other, you go for youth (in this case, at least).

I don't disagree, but in your scenario you're banking on Richards breaking out of his awful year by playing with talent, in my scenario I bank on Fisher improving on his already good year by playing with talent. The difference in my opinion is you're hoping Richards works, where I already know Fisher is playing at a high level.

I'm not doubting that if Richards was playing at his high level that he would be a better pick than Fisher even with Fisher playing at a 70 point click like he is, but Richards isn't and I'd rather have guys on the team who are playing well, versus guys who have the potential to play well.

Youth means nothing in this tournament, Fisher is every bit the faceoff man that Richards is, and they both penalty kill, and skate extreemly well. The different (right now at least) is one is playing well, and the other is under achieving relative to their normal levels.

Can you at least agree with that? If so, then I struggle to understand the reason for having so many guys on the team that are having off years. Staal, Richards, Bergeron, Morrow. All 4 are having off years, and that's just with the forwards. Pronger is the most notable on the back end, although Niedermayer is also having an off year.

All I am saying is maybe Richards needs to be kept, but I'd rather a guy like Fisher who is having a up year, rather than 1 of the 4 others that are having off years.

That's a huge risk, banking on all 4 to turn it around, and yes, I believe they will have to have all 4 turn it around to beat the likes of Sweden or Russia.

Devo

Bergeron is having an off year??? what???

marakh wrote:Bergeron is having an off year??? what???

well how else do you explain his projected 60 points. Is that what you would expect. Much like Fisher he is a huge question mark. He's only cracked 70 points twice and every other year he hasn't cracked 40. He's been injury prone and besides faceoffs, he Staal and Richards for that matter, all trail Fisher at Blocked Shots, Hits, Points, +/-, and PK time (both total and average).

So yes, with Bergeron projected to have 60 points I would say that's an off year.

How else do I explain his projected points? No idea, but that's irrelevant at this point IMO. I don't care about the points he's putting to be honest, he's not there to compete with Joe Thornton. I could say that the reason he doesn't put up huge numbers is because he plays on the 3rd worst team in the league in goals scored (still leads thet eam in points), but as I said, he's there to provide other dimensions, and he has chemistry with crosby as well as a WJC gold medal.

The fact is, he is 1st unit on the best PK team in the NHL, and it's not everybody on Team Canada that will provide that intangible.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

wprager wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

wprager wrote:I have to admit, this will be a hard team to cheer for. Like someone already mentioned, just 2 players from Canadian based teams. I can't stand Pronger or Heatley, not a big fan of Niedermayer (especially as Captain), I feel Fisher got short-changed, Thornton is too easy-going, Brodeur cheated on his wife with his sister-in-law (yeah, it *does* matter to me).

Maybe a few injuries will happen in the next six weeks.

Me too. Funny how that gets swept under the rug.

Are you hoping that folks get injured just so Fisher can make the team?

I definitely wouldn't mind Fisher representing Canada. I'm upset that both Bergeron and Richards got picked over him when he's definitely ahead of them in his level of play this year. It's like he wasn't even being seriously considered. If there are injuries, I expect Lecavalier and St. Louis to be picked over Mike.

So that doesn't really answer your question, I guess.

I'm afraid the "other Richards" and Stamkos should be ahead of Fisher too. He just isn't quite at Olympian level.

Stamkos can score but he's nowhere near as responsible as Fisher in his own end, plus he doesn't hit or block shots. We have enough scoring, what we need is grit and toughness.

It can't really be said that Bergeron is having an off year with a projected 60 pts.

He's hit 70 pts. twice in his career -- hardly enough to see a continued trend as to how many points he should average in a season.

marakh wrote:

Gohan wrote:

Devo wrote:Wow...8 players from non playoff teams...that astounds me. I realize some are veterans like Pronger and Neidermayer, but one would think players having good seasons would be something they would want.

I understand the decision for having Richards over Fisher, but i personally would rather have a player who is having a good season on the team, versus having someone having a bad year. It just doesn't make sense to me to put players who are under achieving on the team.

But I guess others would rather gamble that a player will break out and return to form during the 7 games in the tournament. Me I'd rather take the players who are performing well going in, to me it makes sense that they will maintain their current level of play rather than hoping a guy who is playing poorly changes his.

The issue with that though is the need to match skill with skill. I would have loved Fisher to play in the tourny because it would force him to the wing, where we all know he'd excel; but having the most skilled players all together can truly get people out of a so-called slump. Fisher has fought his whole career to reach 50 points. Richards should be a ppg player for the rest of his career...and he's young. If you have a choice between two players, both producing at roughly the same clip, both with similar attributes, and one with 5 years on the other, you go for youth (in this case, at least).

Not only that. Richards is a Captain, possibly the PKer in the game, has a memorial cup, a WJC gold medal(as a captain).
Every single player on the Flyers team is struggling. I don't buy that "off year" argument. Richards' off year is statistically on par with Fisher's carreer year. Think about that for a minute, people.

Richards is the Captain of a team that was supposed to challenge for the Cup, not the Hall Sweepstakes. Fisher is leading a team that was supposed to be 10-12 in the conference. Richards is playing on a better team (on paper). Having a career year on a team like the Senators is an achievement.

I really don't buy all this crap about "international experience". They have *all* been playing against the best competition in the world. Fisher has gone to the Cup Finals -- that's as high-pressure as it gets.

Couldn't agree more wprager.

marakh wrote:How else do I explain his projected points? No idea, but that's irrelevant at this point IMO. I don't care about the points he's putting to be honest, he's not there to compete with Joe Thornton. I could say that the reason he doesn't put up huge numbers is because he plays on the 3rd worst team in the league in goals scored (still leads thet eam in points), but as I said, he's there to provide other dimensions, and he has chemistry with crosby as well as a WJC gold medal.

The fact is, he is 1st unit on the best PK team in the NHL, and it's not everybody on Team Canada that will provide that intangible.

So chemistry with Crosby and PK is what Bergeron is on the team for? I hope that isn't true, otherwise there are issues. There are plenty of people on the team who can play PK, and in fact do. Bergeron is a good player, but I still question his place on this team.

Devo wrote:

marakh wrote:Bergeron is having an off year??? what???

well how else do you explain his projected 60 points. Is that what you would expect. Much like Fisher he is a huge question mark. He's only cracked 70 points twice and every other year he hasn't cracked 40. He's been injury prone and besides faceoffs, he Staal and Richards for that matter, all trail Fisher at Blocked Shots, Hits, Points, +/-, and PK time (both total and average).

So yes, with Bergeron projected to have 60 points I would say that's an off year.

Mike smokes all those fools. This year, at least.

Me, I never (never-ever) liked Staal. Can't stand him for some reason. But personal bias aside, let's face facts, here, he is having a way-off year.

I don't get all the love for Bergeron. Kudos to him for coming back from that concussion, but is he playing at the same level he was projected to get to prior to that injury? Not even close.

I said this before, if Fisher loses out to Lecavalier, I can understand that, but to Bergeron, Richards and Staal?

Oh, and Niedermayer as Captain? I would have definitely given it to Iginla. Hell, even Crosby, and I can't stand that guy.

marakh wrote:How else do I explain his projected points? No idea, but that's irrelevant at this point IMO. I don't care about the points he's putting to be honest, he's not there to compete with Joe Thornton. I could say that the reason he doesn't put up huge numbers is because he plays on the 3rd worst team in the league in goals scored (still leads thet eam in points), but as I said, he's there to provide other dimensions, and he has chemistry with crosby as well as a WJC gold medal.

The fact is, he is 1st unit on the best PK team in the NHL, and it's not everybody on Team Canada that will provide that intangible.

He won't have Chara back there helping that PK be the best. Marleau kills penalties too, doesn't he? SJS is at 86.5% (versus Boston at 87.5) and they've scored three times as many shorties as Boston has. Ottawa is down in 13th, but let's not forget the AHL-worthy defense in front of the back-up goalie.

marakh wrote:Richards' off year is statistically on par with Fisher's carreer year. Think about that for a minute, people.

You can boil this entire argument down to that, which pretty much sums it up.

Gohan wrote:

marakh wrote:Richards' off year is statistically on par with Fisher's carreer year. Think about that for a minute, people.

You can boil this entire argument down to that, which pretty much sums it up.

Point-wise, yes, statistically on par. That's where the similarities end. Richards has more to play with, and better puck-movement from the back-end. And Fisher has more than twice as many hits while taking 15 fewer penalties, and more blocked shots as well, and better on face offs.

Think about that for a few minutes.

wprager wrote:

Gohan wrote:

marakh wrote:Richards' off year is statistically on par with Fisher's carreer year. Think about that for a minute, people.

You can boil this entire argument down to that, which pretty much sums it up.

Point-wise, yes, statistically on par. That's where the similarities end. Richards has more to play with, and better puck-movement from the back-end. And Fisher has more than twice as many hits while taking 15 fewer penalties, and more blocked shots as well, and better on face offs.

Think about that for a few minutes.

Fisher also doesn't have a history of reckless hits.

Gohan wrote:

marakh wrote:Richards' off year is statistically on par with Fisher's carreer year. Think about that for a minute, people.

You can boil this entire argument down to that, which pretty much sums it up.

again one guy is having a good year and the other is having an off year. Why take a guy who is having an off year over a guy who is playing well?

Just don't get it.

Devo wrote:

marakh wrote:How else do I explain his projected points? No idea, but that's irrelevant at this point IMO. I don't care about the points he's putting to be honest, he's not there to compete with Joe Thornton. I could say that the reason he doesn't put up huge numbers is because he plays on the 3rd worst team in the league in goals scored (still leads thet eam in points), but as I said, he's there to provide other dimensions, and he has chemistry with crosby as well as a WJC gold medal.

The fact is, he is 1st unit on the best PK team in the NHL, and it's not everybody on Team Canada that will provide that intangible.

So chemistry with Crosby and PK is what Bergeron is on the team for? I hope that isn't true, otherwise there are issues. There are plenty of people on the team who can play PK, and in fact do. Bergeron is a good player, but I still question his place on this team.

No, but it`s one thing he has that Mike Fisher doesn't, and it is enough. Also won a GOld medal on a line with Crosby. If you guys think chemistry isn't important, well, why do you think they have Getzlaf and Perry there, along with the entire SJ line, Keith and Seabrook. Do you guys think Seabrook is a better player than Bouwmeester? No chance. But he has chemistry with Keith.
You guys seriously underestimate the importance of winning it all at an international level. Mike FIsher has been on a Stanley cup final series, and he lost. The entire Team Canada staff thinks it is a big deal to have that experience, and sorry but I trust them more than fans on the internet.

marakh wrote:No, but it`s one thing he has that Mike Fisher doesn't, and it is enough. Also won a GOld medal on a line with Crosby. If you guys think chemistry isn't important, well, why do you think they have Getzlaf and Perry there, along with the entire SJ line, Keith and Seabrook. Do you guys think Seabrook is a better player than Bouwmeester? No chance. But he has chemistry with Keith.
You guys seriously underestimate the importance of winning it all at an international level. Mike FIsher has been on a Stanley cup final series, and he lost. The entire Team Canada staff thinks it is a big deal to have that experience, and sorry but I trust them more than fans on the internet.

Yeah, the more I read about it on the net, the more it seems like a pretty solid move. They're quite close, they went through a version of it before, Bergeron can win faceoffs like no one's business, he can score, PK. It's starting to make a little more sense. But if he's on the team, then Staal is the one who should have been sacrificed, not Martin St.Louis. I will never understand just why they left him off this roster. No idea. I assume he'll be on it when all is said and done and there's an injury.

Yeah I would have taken St-Louis over 1 or 2 guys for sure, but when you look at it, the team is composed by either an elite player, some guys with chemistry, or face/offs-defensive specialists. Unfortunately for him He didn't fit in either category, at least according to them.

Staal is another story. Won a Stanley cup and is crazy good when in Pressure situations. Was, IMO the best forward in camp also.