Does Canada still have the best Defence?

Now that our two best d-man Pronger and Blake are gone it makes the defence look a little weaker. I think Canada has the best group of forwards and the best goaltending core by far, but do we still have the best defence? I think we do, but lets break down our defence. On offence you have Niedermayer, Jovanovski, Redden, and Brewer can rush up ice as well. Stay at home solid types are Foote, Regehr. I'm assuming Bouwmeester and Hannan wont get much ice time.

We still have the Norris Trophy winner, but losing Pronger and Blake made us lose two Norris Trophy winning defensemen. Is anyone worried now? We'll still win I believe, but there isnt that much experience outside of 3 of our guys. You need quality d-men to win the tourny. In 1996 Bourque and MacInnis didnt play and our defence was woeful. In 1996 our best defenceman was Paul Coffey who had seen better years. Its still better now, but what concerns does this bring now?

Let me save all of us a bunch of trouble by proclaiming:

1) Canada has the best defense (on paper).
2) Canada has the best forwards (on paper).
3) Canada has the best goaltending (on paper).
4) Canada has the best team (on paper).
5) Canada has the most depth.

There's no doubt that, on paper, Canada should be the odds on favorite to win the World Cup. However, several other countries possess enough across the board to win, and anything can happen in a two week tournament. Carry on!

Let me save all of us a bunch of trouble by proclaiming:

1) Canada has the best defense (on paper).
2) Canada has the best forwards (on paper).
3) Canada has the best goaltending (on paper).
4) Canada has the best team (on paper).
5) Canada has the most depth.

There's no doubt that, on paper, Canada should be the odds on favorite to win the World Cup. However, several other countries possess enough across the board to win, and anything can happen in a two week tournament. Carry on!

True on all counts.

There is enough parity among the top hockey nations that on any given day, any given country may bring the best game, and win the given day. Should be very entertaining.

Now keep the bragging in. Any team in this tournament, could win (except maybe Russia who has had so many cornerstones decline).

as Rabid Ranger said, Canada still has the best D because of depth. there's not nearly as big a dropoff from 1-10 top canadian defensemen as there would be with the other countries

and as he also said, it's all on paper at this point

THe Swedes defense is starting to look awefully comparable though, now!

THe Swedes defense is starting to look awefully comparable though, now!


I don't get the paranoia being expressed about Sweden's defense. Yes, it has some nice top-end talent, but I don't think it's anything that people should gush over.

I don't get the paranoia being expressed about Sweden's defense. Yes, it has some nice top-end talent, but I don't think it's anything that people should gush over.

When you line up the best defenseman in the NHL, four other guys who are number 1s on their teams (and only one of those, Tarnstrom, plays for a junk team), and some decent depth players, there is plenty to like. Not to mention all the top guys have played together for a while and are familiar with the system defense they use.

Not too sound ignorant but other than Lidstrom and Ohlund ..what other top D-men do the swedes have ????
I think it might be a good thing that some of the young blood get a shot ..i think Canadas biggest problem at times is we go with guys too long .I would of love to of seen Nash on this team ..hes a pure goal scorer something we seem to frown on in our players .
How many high scoring juniors dont get a sniff because they dont know how to backcheck????I think its hurt us in the last number of World juniors where guys like Spezza and Crosby hardly saw any ice .
I give the russians credit ..they play their stallions and they are winning Junior Gold .The American Gold was a what it was ..a fluke .If not for Fleury wed be the Golden boys .

When you line up the best defenseman in the NHL, four other guys who are number 1s on their teams (and only one of those, Tarnstrom, plays for a junk team), and some decent depth players, there is plenty to like. Not to mention all the top guys have played together for a while and are familiar with the system defense they use.


Like I said, I have no problem with the top four. Very solid, and Lidstrom is arguably the best defenseman in the league. However, the rest of the group is suspect, and as for Tarnstrom, being a number one on Pittsburgh equals a number three elsewhere. The chemistry factor is valid, but that's a quality other teams, such as the United States, possess as well.

Not too sound ignorant but other than Lidstrom and Ohlund ..what other top D-men do the swedes have ????
I think it might be a good thing that some of the young blood get a shot ..i think Canadas biggest problem at times is we go with guys too long .I would of love to of seen Nash on this team ..hes a pure goal scorer something we seem to frown on in our players .
How many high scoring juniors dont get a sniff because they dont know how to backcheck????I think its hurt us in the last number of World juniors where guys like Spezza and Crosby hardly saw any ice .
I give the russians credit ..they play their stallions and they are winning Junior Gold .The American Gold was a what it was ..a fluke .If not for Fleury wed be the Golden boys .


1) Kim Johnsson and Mattias Norstrom are both very good defenseman, and would be number "1" on several teams.

2) The U.S. win at the WJC's this year wasn't a fluke, and it's ignorant to suggest that was the case. Fluery played a part in the U.S. victory, but the U.S. was considered a pre-tournament favorite, and played up to that level.

Not too sound ignorant but other than Lidstrom and Ohlund ..what other top D-men do the swedes have ????
I think it might be a good thing that some of the young blood get a shot ..i think Canadas biggest problem at times is we go with guys too long .I would of love to of seen Nash on this team ..hes a pure goal scorer something we seem to frown on in our players .
How many high scoring juniors dont get a sniff because they dont know how to backcheck????I think its hurt us in the last number of World juniors where guys like Spezza and Crosby hardly saw any ice .
I give the russians credit ..they play their stallions and they are winning Junior Gold .The American Gold was a what it was ..a fluke .If not for Fleury wed be the Golden boys .

Johnsson (Philadelphia) and Norstrom (Los Angeles) are #1s on their respective teams.

As for putting on young guys "just because", the USA is learning why that isn't such a great idea right now, over in Athens. James, Anthony, and Wade were put on the basketball team because they will sell jerseys and provide hype, but Redd, Miller, and Battier would have been much better selections, even if they arn't as sexy. Experience counts for a lot, and the World Cup isn't the place for Canada to be trotting out guys just to show them off. Let them get NHL experience and then make the team ready to contribute, instead of having to learn as they go.

Johnsson (Philadelphia) and Norstrom (Los Angeles) are #1s on their respective teams.

As for putting on young guys "just because", the USA is learning why that isn't such a great idea right now, over in Athens. James, Anthony, and Wade were put on the basketball team because they will sell jerseys and provide hype, but Redd, Miller, and Battier would have been much better selections, even if they arn't as sexy. Experience counts for a lot, and the World Cup isn't the place for Canada to be trotting out guys just to show them off. Let them get NHL experience and then make the team ready to contribute, instead of having to learn as they go.


That seems to be the minority opinion around here. The U.S. has gotten raked over the coals by many for bringing a veteran roster to this tournament.

That seems to be the minority opinion around here. The U.S. has gotten raked over the coals by many for bringing a veteran roster to this tournament.

Yeah well, look where "here" is. I for one think Russia is smart by replacing their dropouts with experienced international vets like Kovalenko instead of still-growing 18 year old kids like Malkin.

Yeah well, look where "here" is. I for one think Russia is smart by replacing their dropouts with experienced international vets like Kovalenko instead of still-growing 18 year old kids like Malkin.


ITA. I actually think Russia has a better "team" now than when their roster was orginally named.

2) The U.S. win at the WJC's this year wasn't a fluke, and it's ignorant to suggest that was the case. Fluery played a part in the U.S. victory, but the U.S. was considered a pre-tournament favorite, and played up to that level.

the WJC wasn't a fluke at all. it really could have gone either way if fleury had played well, but he didnt and the more experienced american team won. but, c'est la vie, if i'm not mistaken Canada should be the strong favourite for next year

but back on topic, sweden does have good D-men throughout the lineup, but i'd take Canada's over them still. before schneider was replaced with the uncredible hulk, i would have taken the american D over them as well. physical presence counts for a lot in this tournament IMO, which is obviously a north american strength

The American Gold was a what it was ..a fluke .If not for Fleury wed be the Golden boys .


Oh right, because Canada wins when the game ends 3-3.... :shakehead :lol

Hmm

Lidstrom vs. Niedermayer
Ohlund vs. Jovanovski
Norstrom vs. Foote
Tarnstrom vs. Brewer
Johnsson vs. Redden

I'd say its a pretty comparable top five.

Hmm

Lidstrom vs. Niedermayer
Ohlund vs. Jovanovski
Norstrom vs. Foote
Tarnstrom vs. Brewer
Johnsson vs. Redden

I'd say its a pretty comparable top five.

Lidstrom + Ohlund VS. Niedermayer + Foote

This matchup could be a wash on both fronts. IMO Lidstrom isn't the second coming of Bobby Orr that many people make him out to be. Top 5 in the world for sure, but I'm not sure if he's so much better than Niedermayer, or even better at all anymore (niedermayer was absolutely incredible all year, and deservingly got the Norris). Ohlund - Foote is a tough one to guage. I think Foote is the best player in the league from a purely defensive standpoint, but Ohlund definitly has more offensive upside, and is also great defensively. If I had to give an edge, it would be to Sweden, but it's a tiny tiny one

Norstrom + Johnsson VS. Jovanovski + Redden

To me, this is where Canada's defense takes over. Both Jovanovski and Norstrom are physical guys. Jovo gets caught gambling sometimes, but his size, skating ability, and offensive talent put him well ahead of Norstrom. Redden is the most underrated defenseman in the league IMO. He almost never panicks, is smooth, consistant, has a great shot, and is a clear step above Johnsson because of his ability to withstand the physical game. I honestly can't see Johnsson stacking up well against a big strong player like Thornton, Jagr or Tkachuk. I think he'd be manhandled in the corner

Tarnstrom + Ragnarsson VS. Brewer + Regehr

Ragnarsson and Regehr are both similar to me because they're both relied on to be stay at home specialists. Niether has much in the way of offense, although Regehr does have a pretty good shot. He's also more physical and punnishing as well. Tarnstrom has way better offensive talents than Brewer, but he's a definite weak link without the puck on this Swedish D. Brewer is much better defensively (which is simply average), and has a great phyisical presense when he isn't over-commiting


So that's my breakdown of possible Defense pairs. After the first pair, Canada is clearly the better squad

Oh right, because Canada wins when the game ends 3-3.... :shakehead :lol

How do you get 3-3 ..the Osullivan goal was a great goal that probably no one stops ..thats 3-2 ..the kesler goal and the winning goal were terrible that should never of went in ..thus 3-2 canada and Gold .

To take it back even further i thought Fleury choked the previous year also in the gold medal game .

The reason i said fluke win was because how moldy those two goals were ..definite FROMAGE on Fleurys part .However that is hockey but i am not convinced that if Canada played the US in a best of 7 that the US would of won .

Hmm

Lidstrom vs. Niedermayer
Ohlund vs. Jovanovski
Norstrom vs. Foote
Tarnstrom vs. Brewer
Johnsson vs. Redden

I'd say its a pretty comparable top five.

Speaking as a Pens fan, I love Tarnstrom, but he is a big defensive liability, put aside that he plays for the Pens and he is still a liability.

IMO, Canada's D does not have that type of liability.

I definately don't think they would have won in a seven games series.All tournament long i heard how the U.S was the big favourite in that tournament with all their returning players but once the games got under way it was clear Canada had the strongest team.I was kinda surprised,the U.S basically had one good line and three effective defensemen,Canada had four strong lines and a dandy defense corp.Ya gotta give credit to the U.S team for gutting that win out but Canada had no-one but themselves to blame for letting that one slip away,the game was theirs to lose and they found a way to lose it.For me it was a lack of confidence in Fleury that did them in,they had no confidence in the guy and played scared because of it in the final period which nine times out of ten leads to disaster and it did there.I think it was Durochers only real bad move the whole tournament not facing reality that Fleury just was'nt sharp for these games and it was time to go with another keeper.To me, that Canadian team would beat that U.S squad 7 or 8 times out of ten.It was the first junior championship win for the U.S but i think i've seen lots of teams the U.S have sent over that were better than that team but they've got the hardware so what can i say?

Leading up to the final game it was reported that all the fans at the game were saying Canada was going to smoke the U.S as people felt the initial hype surrounding the U.S team was over-rated and that the best hockey being played in the tourney was by Canada.For two periods those fans were dead on.Then came the melt down. I reallt liked the fact the U.S did'nt give up in that game and showed a lot of fortitude but in my opinion Canada had a stronger team and good goaltending would have assured us victory. Oh well, thats hockey.Fleury played awful last year,too bad. I may get a lot of flack for this by U.S fans but it's just the way i saw the games.


You know what I find hilarious? The fact that a Canadian poster is whining about Canada's loss in the gold medal game of the WJC's in a thread about Canada's defense at the World Cup, two totally unrelated events. Can't we just move on?

*cough cough* so yeah, how about defense eh...

cough cough, still looks ok but with losing blake and Pronger tough to say it's the best in the tournament,we'll soon find out.

Why don't you take it to PM, or better yet accept that one of you is Canadian and one is American, and you will never agree; and its probably not worth debating off topic in every thread until one or both of you get banned?

Speaking as a Pens fan, I love Tarnstrom, but he is a big defensive liability, put aside that he plays for the Pens and he is still a liability.

IMO, Canada's D does not have that type of liability.

Jovanovski has some defensive issues... but as long as he doesn't try to over achieve and park infront of the net like he doesd on the Canucks I think we should be fine. Also, Regehr is alot better than many people give him credit for, his size and speed will be a definite asset with Blake and Pronger out.

why don't we just concentrate on talking hockey and be able to give our opinions whether you or anyone else really likes it or not.i don't see why we would get banned for most of that stuff.i've seen a lot worse on these boards thats for sure.By the way, what do you think of our defense? i just saw us taking flack for our conversations(which in all honesty is our business right?)Your views on the defense would be more interesting for me.thanks

Um, I gave my opinion on Canada's defence, a couple of times in this thread, you're hijacking the thread and arguing about Canada's performance in the WJHC b/c the other thread got closed. That is not the topic of this thread.

So, if you want to discuss Canada's defence, this is the place. If you wish to discuss the WJHC, maybe you should take it outside (pun intended).

Jovanovski has some defensive issues... but as long as he doesn't try to over achieve and park infront of the net like he doesd on the Canucks I think we should be fine. Also, Regehr is alot better than many people give him credit for, his size and speed will be a definite asset with Blake and Pronger out.

I remember reading a scouting report on Jovo years ago, basically said he would be a star D, and that he is not prone to frequent mistakes, but when he does make mistakes, it will be highlight reel material.

As true then as it is now. Nonetheless, he is one of the best D in the world, and I wouldn't for a second question his presence in this lineup.

not highjacking anything man, this is not an airplane.Yeah, you gave your go on the defense but you did'nt give it to me on your post,you just went after the supposed high-jacking.If you really think it's totally off-topic then why comment on it? You're sure to keep it going then are'nt you?.Hard to resist i guess but it's counter-productive to your stated goal.An off topic post on a hockey board, bigger problems in the world then that champ. :)

:thumbu:








:dunno:

Even without Blake and Pronger Canada´s D will be tough as nails and get the work done. I don´t think Canadas defense corp is as important to Canadas success as Lidström, Johnsson, Norström and öhlund will be for Sweden.

Its impossible to compare them since they play for diffrent teams with very diffrent systems. Swedish D will provide allot more offense, not because they are better but Sweden will give their D allot more room offensivly. However in the medal round Canada´s D probably have a sligth advantage because they are tougher...

Overall Canada is a huge favourite IMO. They have the momentum and a great mix between vets and younger players. However with the medal round consisting of "best of one" games everything is possible. As a Swede I belive that Kim Johnsson will have a tremendous tournament. I think Lidstrom will be very solid and log allot of minutes. I don´t want to face Canada in the medal rounds... =)

Let me save all of us a bunch of trouble by proclaiming:

1) Canada has the best defense (on paper).
2) Canada has the best forwards (on paper).
3) Canada has the best goaltending (on paper).
4) Canada has the best team (on paper).
5) Canada has the most depth.


Sweden clearly has the best forwards on paper IMO...

Sweden clearly has the best forwards on paper IMO...
Sweden has better top-end talent on forwards, but canada has WAAAY BETTER depth

sweden has guys like Pahlson, Nilson, Holmstrom, Sedins

canada has guys like Draper, Morrow, Doan, Richards, Lecavalier, Maltby

its not really close.

Forsberg, Naslund, Alfredsson, Sundin are a bit better then Sakic, Iginla, Lemieux, Heatley/Lecavalier.

but canada owns sweden in depth.

Sweden clearly has the best forwards on paper IMO...

i'm not so sure they do, and even if they do, it's not "clearly"

even at the top end it's pretty even

forsberg > iginla (depends who you talk to, but it seems to be a majority decision)
naslund = sakic
sundin = thornton
alfredsson = heatley
modin < lecavalier
zetterberg < richards
sedin(s), etc < marleau, doan, st louis, smyth, gagne etc...

and then the wildcard is lemieux. many feel he's still the best player in the world if healthy, and by the looks of it, he'll be healthy

Iginla over Forsberg..Forsberg is now injury plagued while Iginla is a young bull
Sakic over Naslund ..Sakic is clutch
Sundin over Thornton ..Sundin is clutch ..Joe mmmmm 0 points in playoffs
Heatley over Alfie
Vinnie over Modin
Richards over Zetterburg
marleau, doan, st louis, smyth, gagne etc easily over the Sedin sisters and co.

and then of course the Lemieux factor ....its gonna be a battle !!

forsberg > iginla (depends who you talk to, but it seems to be a majority decision)

I must've missed the memo where that was declared a majority decision. Could you please forward it?

I must've missed the memo where that was declared a majority decision. Could you please forward it?

i like iginla better too. but forsberg is the golden boy of these boards, and it just ends up in big pointless arguments when anything bad is said about him

i did all those ratings with a little favour to sweden, because i assume i'm probably a bit biased for canadian players

Iginla is not on Forsbergs level yet. its a joke if you think he is. he is amazing, but peter can dominate a game. iginla has done it in one playoff run. how about peter? misses the entire year with a devastating injury, comes back rusty, and owns the playoffs. he has been amazing year in and year out.

Iginla is not on Forsbergs level yet. its a joke if you think he is. he is amazing, but peter can dominate a game. iginla has done it in one playoff run. how about peter? misses the entire year with a devastating injury, comes back rusty, and owns the playoffs. he has been amazing year in and year out.

he's done it in more than one year. Iggy can dominate a game, and IMO is the better player right now.

i like iginla better too. but forsberg is the golden boy of these boards, and it just ends up in big pointless arguments when anything bad is said about him

No doubt, check out the thread on NHL talk, some people put Foresberg over Mario. What a joke.

Iginla is not on Forsbergs level yet. its a joke if you think he is. he is amazing, but peter can dominate a game. iginla has done it in one playoff run. how about peter? misses the entire year with a devastating injury, comes back rusty, and owns the playoffs. he has been amazing year in and year out.

on pure talent alone, i think forsberg is a much better stickhandler and passer (although in fairness, iginla has never quite had hejduk and tanguay to pass to), but iginla has shown more than forsberg IMO that he can dominate a game. kipper and regehr were great, but it was iginla that dragged that team to game 7 of the finals. he's more inspiring than forsberg to play with, and more intimidating to play against

Iggy has done it at every level ..Memorial cup in Kamloops ,World Junior Gold for Canada ,Olympic Gold for Canada and took a much weaker team than the the Avalanche to within one game of a Stanley Cup .Iggy on all those championships wasnt a bystander either .
I can only imagine what Iggy would do with the likes of Sakic ,tanguay,and hejuk as teammates , there wouldnt be no 3 way tie for the Rocket Richard trophy thats for sure :)

If Iginla was on a team with Hejduk, Sakic etc, he would no longer be "the guy", and who knows whether he would score more goals. It's a lot like Pavel Bure on the Panthers, where he scored basically all their goals. If he came to a good team than he wouldn't have the pressure to have to score all their goals.

If Iginla was on a team with Hejduk, Sakic etc, he would no longer be "the guy", and who knows whether he would score more goals. It's a lot like Pavel Bure on the Panthers, where he scored basically all their goals. If he came to a good team than he wouldn't have the pressure to have to score all their goals.

In the case of some players, this logic may be true. In Iginla's case, I don't feel it is.

Iggy is a heart and sould guy who is far too passionate to get lost on any roster. If he were on a team with top skilled forwards and less pressure, he would score more, not less.

In the case of some players, this logic may be true. In Iginla's case, I don't feel it is.

Iggy is a heart and sould guy who is far too passionate to get lost on any roster. If he were on a team with top skilled forwards and less pressure, he would score more, not less.
That's debatable imo, but I understand your reasoning. My point was just that on a more skilled team, his ice time would go down, and he won't be the go to guy all the time. For example do you think Rick Nash would have scored 41 goals playing with the Ottawa Senators? I doubt it.

That's debatable imo, but I understand your reasoning. My point was just that on a more skilled team, his ice time would go down, and he won't be the go to guy all the time. For example do you think Rick Nash would have scored 41 goals playing with the Ottawa Senators? I doubt it.

It is debatable, were both just giving opinions.

Question for me is, how much would his ice time really go down? I would go down somem but I mean, on what team would Iginla not be on the top line, and see as much time on the PP as possible? There is no such NHL team.

Nash is a little different b/c he is young. B/c of his age, he would not yet be a 1st line player on many teams - not b/c of talent, just b/c he's young. What could Spezza have done by now if he was on Columbus or Pittsburgh for example?

If Iginla was on a team with Hejduk, Sakic etc, he would no longer be "the guy", and who knows whether he would score more goals. It's a lot like Pavel Bure on the Panthers, where he scored basically all their goals. If he came to a good team than he wouldn't have the pressure to have to score all their goals.


Its a good thing Pavel didnt score too many goals on that GOOD Canucks team in 93. :)

That's debatable imo, but I understand your reasoning. My point was just that on a more skilled team, his ice time would go down, and he won't be the go to guy all the time. For example do you think Rick Nash would have scored 41 goals playing with the Ottawa Senators? I doubt it.


So does that mean Guy Lafleur would of scored 100 goals a season playing with the Pittsburgh Penguins instead of that powerhouse Habs team???

So does that mean Guy Lafleur would of scored 100 goals a season playing with the Pittsburgh Penguins instead of that powerhouse Habs team???
I doubt it lol, but never say never man, who knows? Lionel Hutz brought up a point saying what Spezza could have done if he'd been playing for Pittsburgh/Columbus etc. He could have put up Nash type numbers. All I'm saying is that some players have the opportunity to shine more when the spotlight is on them rather than when it is spread out over many people. However I guess I was wrong to say that it would affect Iginla since he probably would get maximum minutes on any team. I still feel my view was pretty legitimate. For example Ovechkin has a chance to shine in Washington next year and maybe hit 60 points playing with nobodys. If he played with Colorado or Toronto etc, he probably wouldn't hit 35 points.

Iginla is not on Forsbergs level yet. its a joke if you think he is. he is amazing, but peter can dominate a game. iginla has done it in one playoff run. how about peter? misses the entire year with a devastating injury, comes back rusty, and owns the playoffs. he has been amazing year in and year out.
Iginla has done it for 2 of the past 3 seasons. The one inbetween, his "off season" due to a wrist injury he played through, he scored 35 goals.

That's debatable imo, but I understand your reasoning. My point was just that on a more skilled team, his ice time would go down, and he won't be the go to guy all the time. For example do you think Rick Nash would have scored 41 goals playing with the Ottawa Senators? I doubt it.
Its not like Iginla plays 30 minutes a night or anything here. He plays around 20-23 mintutes per game. Darryl Sutter likes to roll with 4 lines regardless, and doesn't like to tire out Jarome.

Jovanovski has some defensive issues... but as long as he doesn't try to over achieve and park infront of the net like he doesd on the Canucks I think we should be fine. Also, Regehr is alot better than many people give him credit for, his size and speed will be a definite asset with Blake and Pronger out.

Jovo played stay-at-home for Rob Blake last Olympics to a perfection. Don Cherry called him team Canada's best defender. Jovo's defensive abilities are in the league's elite, however the style he's asked to play in Vancouver lead to the occasional turnover or odd man rush. at the World Cup, you won't be seeing him circle the opposition's goal, or start a rush with his defensive partner, etc like he does on Vancouver, and you can feel safe with him on the ice.

.The American Gold was a what it was ..a fluke .If not for Fleury wed be the Golden boys .

Disagree strongly. You forget that the Americans made a late game push to start the rally to begin with. They were the ONLY team to have any offensive success against Canada and significantly break down Canada's young defense (in terms of the WJC age group they were in). I fail to see how that amounts to a fluke??

Its a good thing Pavel didnt score too many goals on that GOOD Canucks team in 93. :)

60 goals from Bure that year isnt enough for you?

Foppa is clearly the much better offensive player. Iginla can't compare. When healthy (comma - bad keyboard) I can only see Mario being better.


60 goals from Bure that year isnt enough for you?

Nope. 60 more the year after plus a 16 goal playoff performance is. Wait... That should be 18 goals and not 16. He should've scored at least 2 more goals for us in that last playoff game! :mad:



Iggy has done it at every level ..Memorial cup in Kamloops ,World Junior Gold for Canada ,Olympic Gold for Canada and took a much weaker team than the the Avalanche to within one game of a Stanley Cup .Iggy on all those championships wasnt a bystander either .
I can only imagine what Iggy would do with the likes of Sakic ,tanguay,and hejuk as teammates , there wouldnt be no 3 way tie for the Rocket Richard trophy thats for sure :)

41 goals to get the Richard is pretty weak. That's the lowest total I can remember in recent history (not counting the lockout year) and with a 82 game schedule(comma) that is pretty weak. Have you ever thought that the reason why those 3 were able to tie for the Richard was because certain other players had off years (Naslund and Hejduk for eg).

41 goals to get the Richard is pretty weak. That's the lowest total I can remember in recent history (not counting the lockout year) and with a 82 game schedule(comma) that is pretty weak. Have you ever thought that the reason why those 3 were able to tie for the Richard was because certain other players had off years (Naslund and Hejduk for eg).

well, i would attribute that more to stifling defense around the league. iginla has scored more goals (52) in one season than either hejduk (50) or naslund (48) did in their best years...and every year he does it without nearly the supporting cast of those two

well, i would attribute that more to stifling defense around the league. iginla has scored more goals (52) in one season than either hejduk (50) or naslund (48) did in their best years...and every year he does it without nearly the supporting cast of those two

That's bs. Stifling defense is one thing, but when was the last time you saw a guy win the goal scoring title with just 41 goals? We're not talking about the 50's or 60's here. Of course, I know Iginla is capable of scoring 50+. His 41 goals the past season could be consider an off year, but then again, he didn't even get 40 the year before. I just think that many of the quality snipers had off years (including Iginla cause the Flames weren't a bad team the past season).

That's bs. Stifling defense is one thing, but when was the last time you saw a guy win the goal scoring title with just 41 goals? We're not talking about the 50's or 60's here. Of course, I know Iginla is capable of scoring 50+. His 41 goals the past season could be consider an off year, but then again, he didn't even get 40 the year before. I just think that many of the quality snipers had off years (including Iginla cause the Flames weren't a bad team the past season).

I just don't agree with that. goal scoring was down significanltly across the league this year, it was not b/c the "quality snipers" had off years.

Iginla is one of the top snipers in the league if anyone is, and Nash is getting there, or may be there already. Had the "quality snipers" you refer to not had off years, their scoring would likely have been similar.

There have been 2 50 goal scorers in the past 3 years, Iginla is one of them. How can you say it was low b/c he was the dude?

Jeez, I hope scoring gets better.

I just don't agree with that. goal scoring was down significanltly across the league this year, it was not b/c the "quality snipers" had off years.

Iginla is one of the top snipers in the league if anyone is, and Nash is getting there, or may be there already. Had the "quality snipers" you refer to not had off years, their scoring would likely have been similar.

There have been 2 50 goal scorers in the past 3 years, Iginla is one of them. How can you say it was low b/c he was the dude?

Jeez, I hope scoring gets better.

Ah... no, it wasn't. Goal scoring was down from the previous two years, but it wasn't significantly down. It's been at this rate for the last several years. That 41 goal total to win the goal scoring title is the worst ever since 1963! That's the worst total in 4 decades!

There might have been only two 50 goal scorers in the past three years, but as least there were two. But that's not my point. There has always been someone in the modern NHL era to score around at least close to 50, if not more.

I only used Naslund and Hejduk as examples for having off years cause those popped into my head first... There are others. Bertuzzi is one (even if the incident didn't happen, it's questionable whether or not he could score 20). Bure (too injury proned and will never be back in form) is another. You can even make a claim for Iginla. If he was in his 2nd half season's form, he would've gotten 50 easy.

41 goals just doesn't seem right to win the Richard. I seriously doubt that Naslund wouldn't get more than 40 if he didn't have an off year (by his standards). He's scored over 40+ goals for the last 3 or 4 seasons (not including this one cause injuries and the incident got in the way). Hejduk would probably score more than 41 if Foppa wasn't injured so much.

Year-by-Year Goal Scoring Leaders SEASON PLAYER TEAM GP GOALS

2003-2004 Jarome Iginla Calgary Flames 41
TIE Ilya Kovalchuk Atlanta Thrashers 41
TIE Rick Nash Columbus Bluejackets 41
2002-2003 Milan Hejduk Colorado Avalanche 50
2001-2002 Jarome Iginla Calgary Flames 52

This list includes games played stat.
2000-2001 Pavel Bure Florida Panthers 82 59
1999-2000 Pavel Bure Florida Panthers 74 58
1998-1999 Teemu Selanne Mighty Ducks 75 47
1997-1998 (T) Teemu Selanne Mighty Ducks 73 52
1997-1998 (T) Peter Bondra Capitals 76 52
1996-1997 Keith Tkachuk Phoenix 81 52
1995-1996 Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh 70 69
1994-1995 Peter Bondra Washington 47 34
1993-1994 Pavel Bure Vancouver 76 60
1992-1993 (T) Alexander Mogiliny Buffalo 77 76
1992-1993 (T) Teemu Selanne Winnipeg 84 76
1991-1992 Brett Hull St. Louis 73 70
1990-1991 Brett Hull St. Louis 78 86
1989-1990 Brett Hull St. Louis 80 72
1988-1989 Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh 76 85
1987-1988 Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh 77 70
1986-1987 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton 79 62
1985-1986 Jari Kurri Edmonton 78 68
1984-1985 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton 80 73
1983-1984 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton 74 87
1982-1983 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton 80 71
1981-1982 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton 80 92
1980-1981 Mike Bossy Islanders 79 68
1979-1980 (T) Charlie Simmer Los Angeles 64 56
1979-1980 (T) Danny Gare Buffalo 76 56
1979-1980 (T) Blaine Stoughton Hartford 80 56
1978-1979 Mike Bossy Islanders 80 69
1977-1978 Guy Lafleur Canadiens 78 60
1976-1977 Steve Shutt Canadiens 80 60
1975-1976 Reggie Leach Philadelphia 80 61
1974-1975 Phil Esposito Boston 79 61
1973-1974 Phil Esposito Boston 78 68
1972-1973 Phil Esposito Boston 78 55
1971-1972 Phil Esposito Boston 76 66
1970-1971 Phil Esposito Boston 78 76
1969-1970 Phil Esposito Boston 76 43
1968-1969 Bobby Hull Chicago 74 58
1967-1968 Bobby Hull Chicago 71 44
1966-1967 Bobby Hull Chicago 66 52
1965-1966 Bobby Hull Chicago 65 54
1964-1965 Norm Ullman Detroit 70 42
1963-1964 Bobby Hull Chicago 70 43
1962-1963 Gordie Howe Detroit 70 38

Ah... no, it wasn't. Goal scoring was down from the previous two years, but it wasn't significantly down. It's been at this rate for the last several years. That 41 goal total to win the goal scoring title is the worst ever since 1963! That's the worst total in 4 decades!

Those my friend, are semantics. Goal scoring is down, significantly, period. If I gave you the impression I meant a one-year drop, I apologize. Every year, goal scoring has been decreasing, to the point that it is significantly down now. That is a truth only Gary Bettman could try to dispute.

I'd like to see guys racking up the points as much as the next guy, but don't blame them if they can't. Its the defensive game. The fact that there was no 50 goal scorer is b/c of the way the game is being played.

Those my friend, are semantics. Goal scoring is down, significantly, period. If I gave you the impression I meant a one-year drop, I apologize. Every year, goal scoring has been decreasing, to the point that it is significantly down now. That is a truth only Gary Bettman could try to dispute.

I'd like to see guys racking up the points as much as the next guy, but don't blame them if they can't. Its the defensive game. The fact that there was no 50 goal scorer is b/c of the way the game is being played.

What semantics? What are you talking about? Do you even know what you're talking about? Actually, do you even know what I'm talking about? Goal scoring hasn't been so bad that we're back to the 40's and 50's.

I don't care if we didn't have a 50 goal scorer this past season. Selanne didn't have one when he won it in 99 and I don't ***** about that. However, I am *****ing about the weak Richard trophy winners this past season (I'm calling the goal totals weak and not the players) cause none of them had more than 41 goals.

Selanne's 47 goals is much higher than the 3's 41 goals. That 6 goal difference is a lot you know? I just wanted someone to have at least 45 goals to make the Richard trophy more respectable.

Who said anything about a one-year drop? You didn't give me that impression and I thought I clearly stated that in my previous posts by saying that goal scoring has been at last season's rate for the last several years. It hasn't decreased to the point there it's impossible for no 50 goal scorer or someone around that mark. In fact, if Iggy played the 1st half the same way he played in the 2nd half of the season, he would be a 50 goal and the Richard trophy winner(s) wouldn't look as bad!

Can we please get back on topic? This is NOT a Iginla vs Forsberg thread. Let's just say that Forsberg has been more consistant than Iginla over the years. Because it's true.

Back on topic. Canada still has the best D this world Cup. Sweden is 2nd.


Canada will win. They always perform great under pressure.

What semantics? What are you talking about? Do you even know what you're talking about? Actually, do you even know what I'm talking about? Goal scoring hasn't been so bad that we're back to the 40's and 50's.

First off, remove the chip from your shoulder. If you can't debate with someone without shooting off like that, then just don't bother. And for the record, I know what I'm talking about, but your inconsistency leaves me curious as to what you are talking about.

Secondly, this article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1730545&type=story

Says the goals per game in the NHL is down to 5. Thats .27 gpg less than when Salami scored 47, and its down considerably over the past several years. Thats why there is nobody scoring your threshold of 45 goals. If you do a quick google search, you'll find a dozen corrobaorating sources.

First off, remove the chip from your shoulder. If you can't debate with someone without shooting off like that, then just don't bother. And for the record, I know what I'm talking about, but your inconsistency leaves me curious as to what you are talking about.

I would, but since I'm talking apples and you're talking oranges, it's kind of hard to do so. What inconsistency? It's clear that you're trying to reason that 41 goals scored is reflective of the drastic drop in league scoring, which isn't true.

I've been trying to tell you that it's been at the same rate and that Iginla is the perfect example of why there should've been a 50 goal scorer the past season (had he not struggle in the 1st half). Kovalchuk is another great example. He was going at a rate of scoring 60 goals in the 1st half before he totally fell off in the 2nd. Is this indicative of your self proclaimed "not possible for a 50 goal scorer the past season cause of the defensive mind trap?" If Kovalchuk was so great in the 1st half and Iginla was so good in the 2nd, does it not make you think that certain snipers struggled at some point during the season?

If anyone's inconsistent, it's you. You keep going around in circles trying to convince me that the low scoring Richard winners are due to a fact of the defensive play (which in a part is true), but it still doesn't hold water cause it's been at the same scoring rate for several years now.



Secondly, this article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1730545&type=story

Says the goals per game in the NHL is down to 5. Thats .27 gpg less than when Salami scored 47, and its down considerably over the past several years. Thats why there is nobody scoring your threshold of 45 goals. If you do a quick google search, you'll find a dozen corrobaorating sources.


Ok, I don't have time for this anymore and Section X is right. We shouldn't hijack this thread so this will be my last response to you no matter what you say. Yes, it's true that they're are less and less 50 goal scorers, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Even in today's defensive minded game, there are still great players out there capable of reaching 50, if not close to it.

As for that .27 goals, it's a matter of opinion to be honest. To you it's not a lot, but to me, it is. A 41 goal scorer is only a 40 goal sniper and would be pay by that certain amount of goals while a 47 goal scorer would be paid around the 50 goal mark. At least, that's how I feel.

And if anyone should do a google search, it's you. At least I've done my research and posted up all those goal scorers to prove my point, but you just boast about it or make self proclaimtions without backing it up. That article about goal scoring being down is not one I count cause everyone knows goal scoring is down ( but around the same rate for the last several years as I stated before). And that article just proves there are less and less 50 goal scorers, but not none. That's all and I won't reply anymore cause I don't think you understand where I'm getting at.

Section X - What Iginla vs Forsberg??? I can care less about either of them, though I admire Iginla a bit more cause he doesn't dive. We were never debating about Iginla vs Forsberg and even the quacky lawyer would know about that.

Anyway, I won't hijack this forum anymore. Bye all. :banana:

.... and even the quacky lawyer would know about that.

:shakehead Grow up.

Enough

You both need to make an effort to keep things on topic in the future.