It always bothered me that Hull played for the US. I've always wondered why he really did that. He spent a few years in Chicago as a very young child, but he was born in Canada and spent almost all of his life in Canada before going to play college hockey as a 20 year old. What I've always believed is that Canada didn't take him and he was annoyed, so went and played for Team USA simply because he could (dual citizenship due to his American mother....who hadn't lived in the US for many years). The reason I had been bothered is that I thought....if you weren't good enough to play for your country, suck it up, don't go play for a different country, that's more like playing for yourself than your country.
I also wonder if it has something to do with the messy divorce of his parents. He went and lived with his mother in Vancouver and didn't maintain a lot of contact with Bobby. I wonder if part of it is going to play for the US (for his mother) as a bit of a dig against his dad (Canadian). A bit far fetched...I know.
The reason I heard Hull played for USA was because he would get more ice time. Don't know if that's true.
In 1986 Canada didn't select Brett Hull for the IIHF World Championship. At the time he was basically an AHLer with a booming shot. Team USA gave him a call and offered him a roster spot, which he accepted.
He credits that opportunity with Team USA to getting his NHL career on track, and has said it seemed disloyal to jump over to Team Canada after that break.
Presumably you haven't scrolled down to where I said of the purpose of the thread..."Actually it was just his 2008 performance. The Babcock part was just me being a smartass and making an aside".
And furthermore, at this point part of the reason I talk so much s*** about Babcock is because I know you'll write a report to defend him. Kinda like krsmith17 does with Brendan Smith.
Lighten up Harold.
It was meant as a joke because of your Babcock fixation, so I'll lighten up when you do Kip.
And I'm sure there was no attempt to discredit Babcock in spite of mentioning it in your OP and then wondering why he didn't start the All-Star Chris Osgood.
No prob. Everybody knows I hate Babcock, so it's certainly a fair assumption. But I guess the give away is that, aside from the original post, I didn't say anything at all about Babcock and never once turned the discussion away from Osgood and his unreal performance.
The Babs thing, as I've said, is as much a way to entertain myself at Harold's expense as anything.
Asking why Babcock didn't start Osgood isn't turning the discussion from Osgood's performance?
You can pretend you do it to bait me, but until this thread I haven't been defending Babcock here in a while kip. There's no point because you will twist everything to portray Babcock in the most negative light. It's why I said it's become genuinely entertaining. It truly has been fun to watch how things get spun.
At least be honest about your passive aggressive intent here with Ozzy and your obvious Babcock fixation. jeez.
Your opinion. I've watched 10 times now and see no evidence of "Mrazek is overly aggressive and chases Raymond beyond his own post". He chased Raymond? If anything it looks like a half hearted attempt to get back in net. By that time Raymond is in celebration mode. Absurd a goalie gives up on a play??? Umm, that was the huge knock on Bryzgalov from multiple GM's. He'd give up on plays. "Absurd", not really considering we've seen goalies do this. Unusual, or not typical, yeah...you'd like to think since it's the NHL.
Done analyzing one play. Differing opinions on the play which is cool. The defensiveness of some of the responses on here was a bit surprising, but hey...whatevs. I just stand by the fact that It's was an extremely weak effort (effort may be a stretch). It bugs me as I want to win the Stanley Cup this year, and whatever that play was....won't cut it.
The evidence is where he is on the ice. If he didn't chase Raymond, exactly how did he end up so far beyond his own net facing the back boards?
Also, it's not a fact that it was a weak effort. It was your opinion, which is contrary to video evidence. If anything Mrazek gave too much effort and was overly aggressive.
And if you look, I was critical at the time, and still am. He blew it and gave up a bad goal.
Non-smartass question...if he were an All-Star that season, why did he not start the first 4 games of the Nashville series?
At the time I thought Ozzy should get the nod because he was playing so well, but when the other goalie is one of if not the best goaltender to ever play the game, a guy who has strapped teams on his back and carried them to the final rounds, you give him a shot.
It's funny though that you're going all the way back to 2008 to try and chip away at Babcock's reputation and the "myth" of his genius.
He's a coach who:
Won a Stanley Cup Got to the Finals two other times (once with a cinderella team) won 2 Gold medals Is the only coach in the triple gold club. second fastest to 500 wins (Bowman being 1st)
But the "myth of his genius" was formed on Ozzy's playoff run in 2008? Honestly at this point your Babcock fixation is genuinely entertaining.
Okay, you can be fine and accept giving up on a play. I won't. It's actually embarrassing as this is something I hear bantam coaches "ranting" about consistently.
It's a moot point because Mrazek didn't give up on the play.
Watching the replay, he played the initial shot well. It was a three on two and the puck carrier had a lot of room to work. Mrazek came out to play the angle.
Unfortunately the shot hit him and it sounds like it caught part of his mask, and rebounded right back to Raymond. Instead of retreating to his net Mrazek is overly aggressive and chases Raymond beyond his own post.
It was a bad play on his part, but he was great the rest of the game. The idea that a goalie would give up on a play leaving a wide open net is absurd.
Smith adds nothing. He just barely gets by which is an improvement I guess. Still disappointed in his development. He should be contributing by this point in his career. You just watch Kindl with bias. He usually is our best defensemen in the offensive zone, which isn't saying much, but it's very valuable to the team
It's not bias, Kindl just isn't good. There's a reason he's never held even the #6 spot on the roster for an entire season.
He used to among the best on the team at getting his shot through from the point, but he has regressed there as well.
Harold, aren't you a Kings fan sort of? What's your opinion of their captain?
Good player. Wish he didn't dive, especially given the C on his sweater. I haven't noticed him doing it as much as in years past, but someone who draws as many penalties as he does definitely embellishes. And he's had some questionable hits. I don't think he's hunting knees per se but he's following through on some hits that he should've bailed on.
But he's also a gutsy player who has a ton of heart. Hits hard, works hard, and can chip in some goals.
Truth be told I think Kopitar should be the captain but that may just be that he's more in the mold of the Red Wings captains.
I've felt this way for a while. Quincey just summed it up nicely for me when talking about his D pairing.
We play not to lose and our style of game reflects that. As do the results.
Our defence is stifling. We don't give up much but we're also not playing on instinct. We're playing safe and taking a ton of games to overtime.
It's working for now but I don't see it having long-term success for the playoffs.
I see what you're saying. I guess my point was I don't think Quincey's statement in and of itself is proof of much of anything.
But they do play stifling defense. Honestly I feel like this style of game is more geared towards success in the playoffs than the regular season. Other teams will likely try to tighten up defensively as well and not score as much, and the Wings have been in that system all season. But I may just be spinning things the way I hope they go.