The point about depth at centre is probably at the heart of the decision. To win this tournament you are looking at a team coming together over the span of 6 games, and you can't afford to be fumbling around in a new position. People argue that a guy with Giroux's talent can play anywhere, but when competition is so stiff I don't know if Yzerman and co. wanted to risk those in-tournament adjustments.philpritchard wrote:I think everyone's kind of asking about Giroux, but I don't think he was an obvious enough selection that anyone really cares that much. It's not like he's clearly better than Crosby, Stamkos, Tavares, Toews, Bergeron, Getzlaf, Duchene, etc... Canada's kind of ridiculously deep at centre.surfndestroy wrote:I think they took Benn over Giroux. Given the season Benn's having I can see this. I don't understand taking Nash over Lucic. Lucic provides everything that Nash does but better. Would love to have seen St Louis mae the team but not sure at who's expense.warehouse wrote:if im canadian, id be asking where the hell claude giroux is on the olympic squad.
luckily, i am not canadian, im american. so instead im asking where the hell bobby ryan is
I would have taken Harding over Smith but neither was going to see action, so pretty much a mute point.
If I could make any changes, I would probably leave Nash and Kunitz off and include St. Louis and Giroux/Staal. Maybe Seabrook instead of Hamhuis and one of the young goalies instead of Smith.
It's the same reason they went with 4 LH and 4 RH d-men. Seabrook (a right d-man) is probably better than Hamhuis, but not when it comes to playing Left-D specifically.

