I'm putting this here as the main boards clearly don't want to discuss this logically.
I put out an innocent comment that someone like Krug as a 6th or 7th defense men playing limited minutes could have helped the US in that Canada game, namely on the powerplay where they were standing around for four minutes. Here's my thinking:
US was shut down so the PP might have been a game changer.
Justin Faulk played 1:15 in this game. Could Krug or someone like him have taken that time (as powerplay time)
Someone said Krug has peripheral stats, which I quickly shot down with facts, and that he plays "sheltered" minutes, but given the Finland game where they were not only shut out, but gave up 5 goals, couldn't an argument be made?
I believe that you don't always pick the best players at each position, but you pick based on a balance of skills. For example, the USA basketball team selected a mix of stars and role players to get back the gold medal. Similarly, Bergeron was selected to Canada despite their abundance of centers because he is a defensive genius and top face off man that balances their scoring depth.
So when I mentioned Krug's name, I was shot down by everyone including a few Bruins fans. They even suggested not critiquing the roster since losing 1-0 to Canada was nothing to be ashamed of. Well, now after the Finland loss, I wonder if a rethinking of the roster like the US basketball team is in order. Not necessarily a complete overhaul, but some tweaking.
So essentially, my argument that nobody seemed to comprehend is this: could Krug have taken Faulk's measly few minutes if for no other reason than to boost the powerplay? Surely being a defensive liability wouldn't have mattered on the PP. Risk vs reward.