JediDefender.com Forums

Community => JD Sports Forum! => Topic started by: Ryan on February 12, 2006, 07:59 PM

Title: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Ryan on February 12, 2006, 07:59 PM
I can't believe there isn't already a thread for this. I'm pretty excited for the Olympics this year, mainly hockey, but I'll watch some snowboarding and bobsleding.

Here is the men's Olympic hockey schedule:

Group A: Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and Italy.

Group B: Sweden, Slovakia, USA, Russia, Latvia and Kazakhstan.

All times are local Turin time. For Eastern Standard Time subtract six hours.

Wednesday, Feb. 15
Kazakhstan vs. Sweden, 11:30 a.m.
Italy vs. Canada, 1 p.m.
Switzerland vs. Finland, 3:30 p.m.
Germany vs. Czech Republic, 5 p.m.
Russia vs. Slovakia, 8 p.m.
Latvia vs. United States, 9 p.m.

Thursday, Feb. 16
Finland vs. Italy, Noon
Switzerland vs. Czech Republic, 1 p.m.
Sweden vs. Russia, 4 p.m.
Slovakia vs. Latvia, 5 p.m.
Canada vs. Germany, 8 p.m.
United States vs. Kazakhstan, 9 p.m.

Saturday, Feb. 18
Kazakhstan vs. Russia, 11:30 a.m.
Italy vs. Germany, 1 p.m.
Canada vs. Switzerland, 3:30 p.m.
Sweden vs. Latvia, 5 p.m.
Slovakia vs. United States, 8 p.m.
Czech Republic vs. Finland, 9 p.m.

Sunday, Feb. 19
Germany vs. Switzerland, Noon
Russia vs. Latvia, 1 p.m.
Slovakia vs. Kazakhstan, 4 p.m.
United States vs. Sweden, 5 p.m.
Czech Republic vs. Italy, 8 p.m.
Finland vs. Canada, 9 p.m.

Tuesday, Feb. 21
Latvia vs. Kazakhstan, 11:30 a.m.
Switzerland vs. Italy, 12:30 p.m.
Finland vs. Germany, 3:30 p.m.
Canada vs. Czech Republic, 4:30 p.m.
Sweden vs. Slovakia, 8 p.m.
United States vs. Russia, 8:30 p.m.

Wednesday, Feb. 22
Quarterfinal (A1-B4), 4:30 p.m.
Quarterfinal (A2-B3), 5:30 p.m.
Quarterfinal (B1-A4), 8:30 p.m.
Quarterfinal (B2-A3), 9:30 p.m.
**order of quarterfinal games is subject to change

Friday, Feb. 24
Semifinal, 4:30 p.m.
(winner A1-B4 vs. winner B2-A3)

Semifinal, 9 p.m.
(winner B1-A4 vs. winner A2-B3)
**order of semifinal games is subject to change


Saturday, Feb. 25
Bronze Medal Game, 8:30 p.m.

Sunday, Feb. 26
Gold Medal Game, 2 p.m.

I'm pulling for the old US of A, but I'd like to see the Sweeds, Czechs, or the Canadians win it as well. It should be a good Olympics this year.
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Scott on February 12, 2006, 11:22 PM
I can't get in to the Olympics at all

One thing I do wonder though...how do any of those snowboarders pass their drug tests?

(http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/dewaction/dewdayfour-a%20009.jpg)
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Morgbug on February 12, 2006, 11:40 PM
LOL, remember the first snowboard gold medal?  A Canadian won that and no way was he free.  I think he tested positive for marijuana too, but blamed it on accidental inhalation from those using around him ::)

I like the Olympics and try to watch it when I can, but man, some of the sports are distinctly European.  But once the hockey gets rolling, there should be some awesome games there on both the men's and women's sides.  The US women are pretty awesome and the presumed final between Canada and the US should be downright nasty.  Men's hockey is more nerve wracking because we should have a shot at winning, but we may not.

That said, I'm hoping to make it to some events out in Vancouver in 2010. 
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Morgbug on February 17, 2006, 04:19 PM
The US women are pretty awesome and the presumed final between Canada and the US should be downright nasty. 

 :o

And once more for good measure :o

You wanted another miracle on ice?  You got it (http://www.cbc.ca/olympics/sports/icehockey/stories/index.shtml?/story/olympics/national/2006/02/17/Sports/US-Sweden060217.html).  But I don't think it'll make you happy and I'm darn pleased I put in the word 'presumed'.   :o  Maybe they ought to run the score up more :P

And in equally bizarre news, Canada actually has more medals than the US at this point :o  Youse guys have more gold though and I expect as the games wear on you'll pass us. 

Oh, you should try to find highlights of skeleton.  Those guys are nuts!
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Jeff on February 17, 2006, 04:51 PM
Oh, you should try to find highlights of skeleton.  Those guys are nuts!

Skeleton or as I like to call it - "C4 Paralysis Waiting to Happen".

Sure, I'm just going to RUN AS FAST AS I CAN for 40metres (on ice no less), then , jump on a tiny sled and zoom head first at 70-80mph downhill on an icy track...  where's that crazy smilie when you need it.
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Morgbug on February 17, 2006, 05:13 PM
NASCAR without a seatbelt (or 8).  Or a car.  Or a frame.  But hoo doggies, that helmet is going to save your life, no doubt about it. 

There's about 4 million Canadian kids trying the same **** every day on the hills up here.  Man I remember tobogganing on ski hills and we tried to run each other into the huge I-beam poles that held the rope tow up.  Monstrous v-shaped dents in the front of the aluminum toboggan on the way home.  Oh those were the days...
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: JesseVader08 on February 17, 2006, 06:07 PM
Somehow I get the feeling you hit a couple of those I-beam poles without a sled.   ;D

As for the Olympics, I can say that I haven't watched a single event yet.   :-\   Bad Canadian, go to your room.    :-[
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Morgbug on February 18, 2006, 04:52 PM
Good time for a wake up call for the Canucks.  Shutout by the Swiss ???  Uh, whoops.  Czech Republic vs Slovakia for the gold??

Was able to catch the skeleton highlights last night - 125 KPH (75 MPG) headfirst on a kiddie sized sled :o 8)
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Jeff on February 20, 2006, 01:54 PM
Watched a little bit of the Sweden/USA game yesterday - couldn't watch it all since we had lunch plans and was disappointed I only saw the 1st period since it looked like a good finish.   :(

Wow, are things going weird in this tourney. 

USA = 1-2-1
Canada = 2-2-0
Czeck Rep = 2-2-0

And
Finland = 4-0-0
Slovakia = 4-0-0

Might have to revise those Gold Medal game prediction to Finland vs. Slovakia...  :o



And,

spoiler


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Congrats to the USA Women's Ice Hockey Team.  You got "Miracle On Ice"-ed by Sweden, but you pulled it together and spanked the Fins 4-0 for the Bronze.   :)

Nagano - Gold
Salt Lake - Silver
Torino - Bronze

Not a good trend... guess the rest of the world is catching up in Ladies Ice Hockey?   :P
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Holographic Elvis on February 20, 2006, 02:13 PM
Sucks that the men's team is struggling but I had them no higher than 4th and even that was a generous prediction.  I'm not surprised to see Canada struggling cause I didn't have them winning gold either.  I thought it would be a country like the Czech Republic or Sweden taking it this year and obviously Slovakia and Finland are looking strong as well.
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Morgbug on February 20, 2006, 02:32 PM
Sucks that the men's team is struggling but I had them no higher than 4th and even that was a generous prediction.  I'm not surprised to see Canada struggling cause I didn't have them winning gold either.  I thought it would be a country like the Czech Republic or Sweden taking it this year and obviously Slovakia and Finland are looking strong as well.

Canada's stuck in an old boys mentality.  How you leave Spezza and Staal behind is completely beyond me.  Not trying to pick on Bertuzzi, but it made no sense to take a guy that's been struggling and is obviously still struggling over those two guys.

I'm hoping we can still pull it out, but it'll have to be just like '02 to do it again and I don't know if there's enough heart there this time. 
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Jeff on February 21, 2006, 04:02 PM
Things aren't going well for Team USA today vs. Russia.  Score is 3-1 Russia after 2 periods.

On the positive side, Latvia managed to lose to feeble Kazakhstan allowing the USA squad to advance to the next round.

USA (1-2-1) v.s Finland (5-0-0)

Oh yeah, that looks like a good matchup.   ::)

Finland is on a tear... they posted shut-outs against 4 of the teams they faced and only allowed 2 goals overall so far in the tourney.  Not looking good for a weak scoring USA team, that's for sure. 

Should be interesting to see how the rest of the bracket shakes out once the Slovakia vs. Sweden game is over...
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Morgbug on February 21, 2006, 05:49 PM
The whole rest of the men's hockey tournament should prove really interesting.  Canada's trying to relive 2002 for a come from behind win but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's a pretty stupid thing to do.  I don't know that they can pull it off again. 

Interesting Canadian women's win in the hockey too.  Didn't really tear up the Swedes but they pretty much dominated.  I'm not convinced the Swedes are a legitimate #2 though, I think the US women were clearly guilty of looking to the next game rather than playing the semifinal.  I still think there's a pretty good gap and aside from a huge mental lapse, the final should have been US/Canada and the winner wouldn't have been clear. 
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Jeff on February 22, 2006, 02:06 PM
Stick a fork in us...

Intellectually, I knew the USA didn't have much of a chance, but you always have to cheer for your team, right?   :-\

Oh well... I guess I'll jump on Slovakia's bandwagon now.   ;)
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Morgbug on February 22, 2006, 06:26 PM
Can I borrow that fork >:(  I'll second guess the brains at hockey Canada in a while...
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Jeff on February 22, 2006, 07:36 PM
Oh well... I guess I'll jump on Slovakia's bandwagon now.   ;)

Crap...  that lasted all of a few hours.  ::)

And Brent, to get you started - the local Talk Radio guy had Lou Nanne on to talk Olympics and he once again brought up how Sid the Kid was snubbed by Canuckia and remarked that Ovechkin has what, 5 goals so far in the tourney?
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Morgbug on February 22, 2006, 11:07 PM
Ovechkin is a good example, Malkin is better given he's not even currently playing in the NHL right now. 

As for Canada, yeah, I'm along the same lines.  There was a yahoo story a while back where a guy was berating the US team for their lacklustre performance and suggesting NHL players have no place there.  I disagree but can see his point to a degree. 

But lots of folks up here have commented on the Canadian roster selection even prior to the start of the Olympics and I'm inclined to agree.  There are more than a few guys I'd have left off the roster and quite a few seriously stupid snubs. 

Crosby comes to mind.  He's good, no doubt and he's part of the future.  He'll be playing in 2010 no doubt, so why not give the kid some experience now?  I just don't get it. 

Eric Staal?  What the **** were they thinking?  Really, explain this to me.  Same boat as Crosby here, young guy, almost a lock to play in 2010 (might have to take his two brothers then too :o).  Certainly should have been a lock this year as well - number three in the  league in scoring, essentially as a rookie?  Little help here?


Jason Spezza?  Not an NHL rookie, played fantastic thus far this year, top 25 in scoring (in spite of a Senators slump for the past three weeks).  A fine player in the NHL two years ago as well.  So why not take the kid?  Too good? 

Some old **** named Kariya?  Having a pretty fine year I'd say.  Want leadership?  How about taking a guy like that?  Oh yeah, he's putting the puck in the net and having a revival as well.  Nah, **** 'em. 

Who'd they take?  Why the 2002 team of course, because there's no reason 4 years down the road they can't get it done again, right? ::) 

Bertuzzi?  Gimme a ******' break.  He's not designed for olympic style hockey and he's not even playing NHL hockey very well at the moment.  Yeah, he's got a lot of **** on his plate, did Gretzky some how miss that media report?  An Olympic tournament is not the time or place to show confidence in your buddy.  Should have been left at home.

Kris Draper?  Over Kariya?  Why?  Why, why, why? 

Lecavalier/Richards/St. Louis - hey, I'm right there with you, awesome hockey players and contributors in a big, big way - 2 years ago for the cup and 4 years ago for the Olympics.  No way should any one of those guys gone ahead of Staal this year.  Take the best NOW, not then.  I've no doubt these guys are still going to be amazing players for years to come, but again, show up to win, not have your buds there.

And speaking of buds, Ryan Smyth?  What's that, the token Oiler to help maintain fan support in Edmonton?    ::)

Foote and Blake.  Yep, I agree, you need some experience and I also agree that they got nailed on the D by injuries in losing out with Jovanoski and Niedermayer.  But just so you know, Foote and Blake are 35 and 37 respectively.  Any chance these guys don't get up and down the ice as quickly? 

Goaltending?  They took who I would have.  But is there a reason they can't play Luongo or Turco?  I love Brodeur as a goaltender and he didn't play poorly, but why not take a shot early in the round robin with one of those two other guys?   They're not exactly dogs.  Crazy stuff. 

That said, it's easy second guessing after the fact.  Still, I would have taken Staal, Spezza, Crosby and Kariya in favor of Bertuzzi, Smyth, Draper and maybe Richards(?).  See, you could have taken three young stars to the tournament and given them valuable experience.  They were playing better than the guys I suggested dropping during the months leading up to the tournament.  I suppose the selection process took place well in advance, but I'd hope they wouldn't base the selection process on what took place over a full NHL season ago.  Spezza, Staal and Crosby were all playing while those other guys were golfing for heaven's sake, how is that hard to miss :'(
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Jesse James on February 23, 2006, 01:09 AM
Believe me I'm incredibly happy they didn't take him...  :)  irregardless of how our season ends (it'll end bad irregardless), I don't want him getting hurt at the Olympics...  I'm a huge detractor of any NHL'er playing in the Olympics though, and I just don't find the games quite as entertaining.  I liked the youthful games is all though and feel these players have obligations to their respective city's teams first.

I'm shocked at the final 4 really...  I'd have never guessed that...  I'm ready for the NHL to be back and this to be over though, even if I don't have much to look forward to as a Penguin's fan. :)
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Ian_C on February 23, 2006, 11:49 AM
Here's hoping Sweden wins, so Mats Sundin can win something of significance this year. ;)

I saw the first two periods of yesterday's Canada game, and I have to say they got what they deserved.  They were shut out three times, and were getting outshot badly against Russia.

Brent, I'm glad you didn't include McCabe in your bashing....

It's good they went down like this.  Now there will be no outcry when Quinn gets turfed by the Leafs in a couple of weeks.

Ian
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Holographic Elvis on February 23, 2006, 01:37 PM
I'm pulling for Sweden because of how many of my Wings are on the team.

Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Morgbug on February 23, 2006, 02:47 PM


Brent, I'm glad you didn't include McCabe in your bashing....


I don't always like to bash on defensemen anyway, so picking on Foote and Blake was tough, but this team felt just too much like an old boys club.  Had Yzerman and Lemieux actually played, what would the average age have been, 75?  All I kept hearing about was experience, experience, experience.  Well this is an athletic endeavour folks, not a board meeting, so some high level skill and speed and general athleticism would have been nice too.  A mix of young and old would be productive for future olympics as well.  I'm sorry, but a 35 year old hockey player is a 35 year old hockey player.  To suggest there's limited young blood in Canadian hockey is just a pile of crap. 

I don't know that they'd have won with the changes I suggested.  But I do think they're every bit as guilty as the US women's team in looking too far ahead without taking care of the business at hand.  Shut out in three games?  Let me rephrase, they were far more arrogant than the US women's team, at least they only had a one game screw up.  The Canadian men, including the playoffs, finished 3-4 :-X
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: John C on February 23, 2006, 03:34 PM
I've heard they may boot out the NHL players after the 2010 Olympics.  That would be fine with me.  I want the USA to have a group of guys who play together for a year or so before the Olympics so they can learn how to play as a team.  No more of this throwing a group of pros together at the last moment, forcing them to learn how to play as a team in a short time.  The pros don't really care about winning, anyway IMO.  They are used to playing for their paychecks.  I want amateurs.  Take an all star college team and throw them in there.  They will play with more heart than the pros.  That would be more fun to watch IMO.
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Jeff on February 23, 2006, 03:40 PM
Yeah, we joked that it would have been interesting to see how Team USA would have fared against, say the Golden Gophers or Wisconsin Badgers.

Watching the Gophers play lately, they sure would have played with more speed and energy than Team USA mustered in a few of thsoe games.  Also would have played a lot closer without the stupid penalties the USA kept taking...
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Morgbug on February 23, 2006, 03:50 PM
I've heard they may boot out the NHL players after the 2010 Olympics.  That would be fine with me.  I want the USA to have a group of guys who play together for a year or so before the Olympics so they can learn how to play as a team.  No more of this throwing a group of pros together at the last moment, forcing them to learn how to play as a team in a short time.  The pros don't really care about winning, anyway IMO.  They are used to playing for their paychecks.  I want amateurs.  Take an all star college team and throw them in there.  They will play with more heart than the pros.  That would be more fun to watch IMO.

Does this hold true for the basketball in the summer games as well?  And to play devil's advocate, how do we deal with snowboarders that ride for money and have million dollar sponsorship deals?  I don't disagree with you at all, hockey would be more interesting without those big names, though I think this year is pretty interesting overall, just not for those of us in North America.   ;)  But I think the notion of amateurs-only in the Olympics is long, long gone now. 
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: John C on February 23, 2006, 06:02 PM
I see where you're coming from.  I dislike the NBA and their players are just a bunch of thugs.  They should also be left out.  The college players have more energy and fire.  The NBA bores me to tears.  The college game is more fun.  As for the other paid athletes, I think it's up to the Olympic commitee to decide what they want to do.  I just read in a newspaper and heard on the radio that the 2010 Olympics may be the end of NHL players in the Olympics for all teams, not just the USA. 
Title: Re: 2006 Winter Olympics
Post by: Holographic Elvis on February 26, 2006, 03:45 PM
3 of my Wings help get Sweden the gold.  3-2 Sweden over Finland.