Canuck
-
Posts
283 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Canuck
-
-
I'd personally have trouble using the term "lucky" to describe Edmonton's playoff run. They dispatched the President's Trophy winners in six. The beat San Jose, the hottest Western Conference team entering the playoffs, four straight times to take the series in six. And they bounced the Ducks in five games. I don't buy luck being the largest factor in a run that long and impressive.
I can't say I watched a lot of Wild regular season games over the past few years, but I am an Oiler fan and caught 3/4 of their games after they acquired Roloson and I was surprised at how much he works the officials. If he didn't currently play for my favorite team, I might be inclined to call him a whiner.
But I have to give him this much; he never gets rattled by the crease-crashing and extra whacks at the puck. It seems like he's making a conscious effort to "work" the officials, and I think you saw that pay off in Game 5 against the Ducks when Anaheim was whistled twice for goalie interference (and the Penner call was a phantom call).
Roloson has made himself a lot of money with each passing round and I would have no problem with Edmonton re-signing him to a two-year deal.
-
Although there are a numbers of NCAA players going to the NHL, I don't think Grapes is going to be alive when the NCAA does finally catch up with Major Junior hockey in Canada. I guess there is something for the NCAA to shoot for.
Please don't talk like that; Don Cherry will NEVER die.
-
I know who Canuck is and wouldn't question his allegiance to the Sioux. And I thought you would bring up when an NCAA player signs a contract. The key difference is that while they lose the scholarship, while playing college hockey, school is at least as important as hockey (or at least it should be). That is in no way the case in the CHL. So a guy that played NCAA for three years then signed a contract has three years of college/university completed, while a guy who plays three years in the CHL and then signs a contract has nothing.
This whole "argument" was based on development toward the NHL, and the only guys that can benefit from the CHL scholarship program are ones that do not go on to the pros.
I understand your point, but also keep in mind that college players are, of course, college age. I would say more than half of the CHL players are still in high school. Those who are older at least have the option to attend college while playing.
No, it isn't an ideal situation because of the aforementioned 70-game schedule, but that is one of the plusses of the junior ranks: many will tell you that 70-game schedule better prepares a player for the adjustment to the grind of a pro schedule.
Again, one isn't right and one isn't wrong; it's the preference of the player.
-
Yes, I would think you are reading it wrong, Goon. I think if you read every single post I have ever made, you will not find a single instance of me being anti-NCAA. I'm simply trying to bring a different perspective to certain arguments, since, because of geography, I spent the first 17 years of my life following Canadian junior hockey, and the last 10 years of my life following NCAA hockey. Therefore, I like to think I can bring a little different perspective to some of these discussions.
Also, I've never once said junior hockey is better than NCAA hockey or vice versa. They both have their pros and they both have their cons, and the truth of the matter is, I tremendously enjoy both of them, sometimes for very different reasons.
But every now and then I read on here a post that contains some sort of phallacy, or maybe some sort of opinion about things North of the border that I see as uninformed, and I feel the need to respond.
The impression that I'm even one percent anti-Sioux or anti-NCAA would probably downright laughable to anyone who knows me.
To simplify, I never said you receive an ideal education playing junior hockey. But the implication in some previous posts was that you get zero education, or at least an inferior one. The fact that WHL scholarships are forfeited in the event of signing a pro contract...well, tell me something: What happens to an NCAA scholarship when a player signs a contract, or is even cut?
I'm not trying to grind an axe; just trying to engage in discussions. I thought that's what these boards were for.
-
Provided the player never signs a pro contract.
Another advantage for the NCAA is the certainty of where you will play. A kid can't get shipped off to Union or Merrimack if they get off to a slow start.
Maybe give my post another read, because the first excerpt I highlighted deals with players during their junior years:
All costs associated with a player?s education, whether high school or post-secondary courses, are covered by the WHL Club. -
Might as well be Billy Bob's 10 minute online MBA...
The college courses in MOST cases are a failed pathetic attempt to be something other than a potential dead end hockey camp.As many of you might have guessed I really dislike the WHL and what the do to their kids...
Perhaps you had a personal situation that has caused you to feel this way, but it sure doesn't look to me that they're treated as horribly as you imply:
Of particular note:
And:All costs associated with a player?s education, whether high school or post-secondary courses, are covered by the WHL Club.The WHL Scholarship is fully guaranteed - for every season a player participates in the WHL, he is entitled to a full year of tuition, textbooks and compulsory fees to a Canadian or American post-secondary institution of his choice. -
College classes doesn't equal Accredited US College.
Oh, excuuuuuuuuuse me.
-
Speaking of the NHL, I'm a Red Wings fan and obviously disappointed that I waited up until almost 1:45 am to see Edmonton win in double OT last night, but is it just me or is anyone else tired of watching Edmonton revert immediately back to the neutral zone trap. ZZZZZ.
Against a franchise, Detroit, that re-introduced the left wing lock over the last decade. This Oiler fan will take the win any way he can.
-
Don Cherry is the Doug Woog of Canadian Hockey. Yeah, I said it. Only difference is that Woog makes a decent commentator.
WOW.
On second thought...I won't even touch that one.
-
Major junior players can still attend college classes.A) College Education for those that don't get the big offers.2) Superior exposure.Really? To whom? ESPN/ESPN2 televises the Frozen Four and regional networks televise most games of select teams. Major junior games, regular season and playoffs, are televised throughout the season on one of Canada's national sports networks. Seems like a wash to me.
The NCAA is rapidly producing more and more NHLers than it used to, yes, but the total numbers don't yet approach the CHL (WHL, OHL, QMJHL).III) Likely a higher percentage for developing high end talent and placing them in the NHL (maybe close, but the trend is the NCAA is closing or passing MJs).E) Good exposure to US scouts (where most the NHL is, sorry canada)Oh that's right. Because scouts never travel.
-
Gilbert's rights are owned by Colorado picked in the 4th round of the 2002 draft.
Gilbert is property of the Edmonton Oilers. Colorado traded his rights for goalie Tommy Salo a couple of years ago.
-
What is it with Russians and Eastern Europeans and their tendancy to resort to kicking. Did their mothers teach them how to fight. I like Finlands chances even better with Malkin out of the Russian lineup.
I saw that when it happened and I was wondering if the match penalty would result in a suspension. None of the CBC announcers had any idea what the penalty was for, which wasn't really surprising considering how dreadful Bob Cole and Harry Neale were - and I'm one of their biggest fans.
-
Lost in all of this furor and disappointment over Team USA's finish is the lack of big picture perspective. This team never SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED TO MEDAL. However, I don't believe there is necessarily anything WRONG with USA Hockey right now. It is simply "in-between" generations right now.
Look, let's not forget that for the better part of a decade, the Modanos, Weights, Guerins, Tkachuks, Leetchs, Richters, Hatchers brought USA Hockey to new heights on the international level. So much so that fans are now disappointed when they don't win a gold. Man, I remember growing up watching Canada (now World) Cups where the Americans had players like Chris freaking Nilan on their roster. This organization has grown leaps and bounds since then.
The only problem is that those players above have either retired or are near retirement, and the next generation of stars isn't quite ready yet. But they WILL be heard from by 2010 (assuming NHL players still take part in the Olympics).
There is a new generation on the way and it includes players like Phil Kessel, Zach Parise, Ryan Miller, Jack Johnson, Ryan Suter...
Believe me, there was this kind of uproar TIMES 1,000 in the late 90s when Canada failed to medal at the 98 Olympics and went a couple of years without winning gold at World Juniors. It was coast-to-coast national panic, no exaggeration. But I would say things took care of themselves just fine.
These things are cyclical, especially when you consider how rapidly other countries are improving.
-
Correct, Panzer was a much more effective COLLEGE player.
I understand what you're saying but in hindsight I didn't word my question as well as I could have. In 2001, Ryan Miller was "a product of the system," "overrated," etc. In 2006, he's the best American goalie on the planet. I see.
Don't mind me...just stirring ye ol' pot.
-
In my never-ending search for consistency in arguments on this board, I ask (somewhat rhetorically), "So let me get this straight. Ryan Miller was NOT deserving of the Hobey Baker Award, but suddenly he IS deserving of being on the U.S. team?"
-
They'll have trouble proving it with anything short of someone pulling a "Steve Smith, from behind the net off of Grant Fuhr"* goal for the other team.
says the lifelong Oiler fan. I may or may not have cried myself to sleep as a young boy that night. -
That 1996 game #3 is still right up there in my memory of the two greatest games I have ever had the opportunity to watch. The other obviously is the 1980 USA/Soviet Union game.
Agreed. In my opinion, that remains the greatest big-game goaltending performance I have ever seen, particularly in the third period.
-
What was the Canadian news media saying about Gretzky?
Most of what I was able to read did still include Gretzky in the broad story, but usually in a different light. The general consensus, especially by columnists, was that this guy's reputation has been virtually impeccable throughout his 25-plus years associated with the NHL and that he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
I was somewhat surprised by the degree to which Gretzky was implicated in the U.S. media, but then again, not really. It is a rather significant sports story, but to most south of the border, Who is Rick Tocchet? Gretzky gave a household name to the story which is, I'm sure, enough for most media outlets to salivate.
-
I recall some of the Canadian rhetoric regarding the 1996 World Cup as well, Canuck, and it was along the lines of how dare that mighty Team Canada lose to its pathetic neighbor to the south, the United States of America.
We'll end up disagreeing on this one, because all I remember is a lot "Damn Mike Richter..."
I doubt you'd find many who felt the '96 U.S. World Cup team wasn't a worthy champion. That team consisted of most of the most important players in U.S. hockey history.
-
"American propaganda"? You show ME an example of anti-Canadian propaganda by the US sports "machine."
I think I can actually do so, I just don't have them with me at the moment. I actually saved several articles from U.S outlets after the 1996 World Cup because they were so ridiculous in their rhetoric.
The Gretzky rant in 2002 was obviously timed and calculated, but there is no denying a large portion of hockey observers would like to see Canada lose. Again, that just comes with the territory. I don't know what you mean by "US sports machine," but I see no problem with people rooting against Canada, nor do I see harm/arrogance in Canadians like Gretzky pointing it out.
I'm guessing the American propaganda comment was directed solely at a sensationalistic media, not the everyday U.S. hockey fan like yourself. Look no further than how this betting scandal was portrayed by the same media. Never was there any indication Gretzky himself would be implicated of any wrong doing, and Rick Tocchet himself was ACTUALLY CHARGED. Yet what are the headlines in the New York Post, the USA Today and so on? "The Great Betzky," etc, etc. Now that Gretzky has officially been all but absolved of any involvement, the media doesn't touch the story, nor do they recant their assumptions that Gretzky was involved.
I have watched every single minute of Olympic hockey this year on both networks, and I have yet to see any display of this arrogance you alude to by members of this year's team, its coaching staff or its management. That's the only point I was trying to make.
-
MafiaMan,
Was anything Gretzky said untrue? Just read the numerous comments on this very board, and it isn't hard to fathom that, when it comes to hockey, a lot of people would like to see Canada lose. That's just the facts. Just like a great many people surely took delight in Team USA's disappointing finish in basketball a couple of years ago. As I've said, ad nauseum, when you're the perceived top dog in something (ie., NY Yankees, Duke basketball), people want you to lose.
I don't equate pointing this out with arrogance. Especially when pinning comments made in 2002 and 2004 to this year's team.
-
Given the Canadian team's arrogance...
Huh?
Examples??
-
Curtis Murphy has been selected to represent Team Canada in the AHL All-Star game:
-
Former Sioux defenseman David Hale, Matt Greene and Matt Jones have all been named to the PlanetUSA Team for this year's AHL all-star game:
former players
in Men's Hockey
Posted
Honestly, how many people saw that coming? I'm among the most optimistic Oiler fans and I sure didn't. Neither did a single media preview I read.
I'll agree with you to a point; there are times luck plays a factor in a single victory along the way. But if you're saying they were lucky to qualify for the playoffs, and lucky to beat Detroit (in less than 7), and lucky to beat San Jose (in less than 7) and lucky to beat Anaheim (in less than 7), that means they are now entering their fourth month of a "lucky run."
The law of averages would have seen to it that a lucky streak like that would have ended WEEKS ago.
But no matter what the reason(s), I'm enjoying the hell out of it!