What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Lead up to Sochi

Re: Lead up to Sochi

robertearle said:
Still seems like a risk to me to keep seven defense, with Kessel having missed so much time, etc. I know she's supposedly going to be ready, but what if....
Click to expand...

They'll only play 3 lines anyway so even without Kessel they have 10. Besides it let Stone take another Harvard player...is anyone really surprised? It's really pretty stupid that they are taking 7 D when you consider that they have Chu and a Lammy that can both play D pretty well if need be.

IMO Chesson should have made the team too...I don't know that the gap between her, as a 27 year old former Olympian, and the others was enough that she should have been gone as #8. If the plan was to take 7 D, she should have been there as #7. If the plan was to take 6, then I'd have less issue with them not taking her.
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

tristarscoop said:
The final two games were interesting to me in that it seemed that Canada had found some answers on how to neutralize the Lam-Duggan line, and even Decker and Coyne to some extent.

But the Knight-Carpenter-Stack line pretty much had their way with Canada in Minny and Toronto. There is just no one that can handle their combination of size and skill. They just out-muscled Canada left and right in both of those games and Canada just doesn't seem to have any answer. It will be interesting to see if Canada can adjust in the next few weeks, but to me, that's the line that will be absolutely key.

I don't know enough about Canada to know, but it seems like they don't have anyone with the same mix of size, speed and skill to go against those ladies.
Click to expand...

I think the most important thing that Canada can do is to figure out how to score on the power play...the rest should take care of itself.
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

I'm just wondering why the men get a roster of 25 while the women get to send 21 and if someone gets hurt that team is just out of luck and has to play a short bench.
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

Because the lack of out and out body checking makes those types of debilitating injuries less likely, and in the event they do occur, no team is playing 4 lines anyway unless they are winning in a blowout.
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

claw said:
Because the lack of out and out body checking makes those types of debilitating injuries less likely, and in the event they do occur, no team is playing 4 lines anyway unless they are winning in a blowout.
Click to expand...

If anyone wanted to try to sell me on the idea that this is why the men get 25 and the women get 23 I might (might) be willing to go along.
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

claw said:
They'll only play 3 lines anyway...
Click to expand...

With six games in 13 days, I expect everybody will be getting their share of ice time.

(And somebody smarter than me will have to say whether that compressed schedule is more a burden on the forwards or defenders.)
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

claw said:
They'll only play 3 lines anyway so even without Kessel they have 10. Besides it let Stone take another Harvard player...is anyone really surprised? It's really pretty stupid that they are taking 7 D when you consider that they have Chu and a Lammy that can both play D pretty well if need be.

IMO Chesson should have made the team too...I don't know that the gap between her, as a 27 year old former Olympian, and the others was enough that she should have been gone as #8. If the plan was to take 7 D, she should have been there as #7. If the plan was to take 6, then I'd have less issue with them not taking her.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if the decision hinged on keeping another Harvard woman on board
I have followed Harvard hockey for years and followed women's since '87 when my son's babysitter was playing. (only missed one women's game in the past 2 years and that game I was in an MRI machine when the puck dropped, reasonable excuse)
Katey is a really great coach but for reasons I don't fully understand likes to play a short bench. She usually has 9 forwards and 7 defence players. She usually plays two lines frequently and the third line less frequently. Some fans question this policy but it has been working pretty well for her and for Harvard.
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

Veritas said:
I am not sure if the decision hinged on keeping another Harvard woman on board
I have followed Harvard hockey for years and followed women's since '87 when my son's babysitter was playing. (only missed one women's game in the past 2 years and that game I was in an MRI machine when the puck dropped, reasonable excuse)
Katey is a really great coach but for reasons I don't fully understand likes to play a short bench. She usually has 9 forwards and 7 defence players. She usually plays two lines frequently and the third line less frequently. Some fans question this policy but it has been working pretty well for her and for Harvard.
Click to expand...
She'll be facing opponents with far more depth than is customary in college hockey I think...where I don't feel the short bench philosophy is well advised.
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

brookyone said:
She'll be facing opponents with far more depth than is customary in college hockey I think...where I don't feel the short bench philosophy is well advised.
Click to expand...

Especially when you play 6 games in 13 days!
 
A strategy that works well but doesn't go all the way isn't something to entertain. Same actions don't produce different results, just insanity.
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

Veritas said:
I am not sure if the decision hinged on keeping another Harvard woman on board
I have followed Harvard hockey for years and followed women's since '87 when my son's babysitter was playing. (only missed one women's game in the past 2 years and that game I was in an MRI machine when the puck dropped, reasonable excuse)
Katey is a really great coach but for reasons I don't fully understand likes to play a short bench. She usually has 9 forwards and 7 defence players. She usually plays two lines frequently and the third line less frequently. Some fans question this policy but it has been working pretty well for her and for Harvard.
Click to expand...

Until we get to March. Then we pay the price for a short bench by not being able to go deep into the month. How many times have we lost in the semis? Enough to where you have to question her strategy.

That being said, Jo Pucci can move up to play forward if necessary so I'm not concerned with the 7 D.
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

Veritas said:
. Some fans question this policy but it has been working pretty well for her and for Harvard.
Click to expand...

It depends on what your definition of pretty well is. No national championships would imply its not THAT effective, right?
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

brookyone said:
She'll be facing opponents with far more depth than is customary in college hockey I think...where I don't feel the short bench philosophy is well advised.
Click to expand...

D2D said:
Especially when you play 6 games in 13 days!
Click to expand...

Have to agree with this, particularly when the drop off from the 3rd to the 4th line isn't going to be all that great given the depth of talent at this level.
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

Skate79 said:
Until we get to March. Then we pay the price for a short bench by not being able to go deep into the month. How many times have we lost in the semis? Enough to where you have to question her strategy.

That being said, Jo Pucci can move up to play forward if necessary so I'm not concerned with the 7 D.
Click to expand...

I concur about the short bench, just was saying that that is what she likes to do and has had some decent success during the season.
Fully agree about Josie Pucci, an awesome player and really nice young lady. When I saw the reports of the bombing in Russia I thought "Vic Pucci's hair must be standing on end". After all his NYPD experience he must get worried about the teams that will be over there.
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

why anybody thinks Stone should have kept a different number of forwards or different players is why she's the coach and you're not.
the team she selected could have been picked last summer, no surprises

you need an extra defender in case of injury, move one of the forwards to D? dumb, stupid, idiotic, why would you break up a line?
you don't need a 4th line, and oh, BTW, if you need another forward you could move All American Gigi Marvin (her position in college) to forward (to counter your stupid "if you need another D, move MoLam to D" statement)

Team USA has exactly the players it needs, and the number of players it needs to do the job, this isn't a season of games, it's a tounament
 
Re: Lead up to Sochi

pokechecker said:
Team USA has exactly the players it needs, and the number of players it needs to do the job, this isn't a season of games, it's a tounament
Click to expand...

They will play six games, roughly every other day, which is more than they're used to. But with TV timeouts and a few lessor opponents on the preliminary schedule, three lines of forwards (plus two) should be sufficient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top