World Cup: 2016 World Cup — Team Canada (Part II)

[1Gold Standard]

Subban WAYYYYYY better than shea weber,when Weber gets a Norris trophy then we can talk.

hockey writers, journalists vote for the Norris trophy and do so based on only 1 criteria, offensive production. There's more that goes into being an elite level defenseman then offensive production, and the last time I checked hockey writers don't pick National Teams, hockey people do.

 

[JackSlater]

I know the 2006 "gretzky picked too many vets" rhetoric is popular but is it really justified?
This was the lineup:
Martin Brodeur
Roberto Luongo
Marty Turco

Rob Blake
Jay Bouwmeester
Adam Foote
Bryan McCabe
Chris Pronger
Wade Redden
Robyn Regehr

Todd Bertuzzi
Shane Doan
Kris Draper
Simon Gagné
Dany Heatley
Jarome Iginla
Vincent Lecavalier
Rick Nash
Brad Richards
Joe Sakic
Ryan Smyth
Martin St. Louis
Joe Thornton

Sakic (36) and Draper (34) were the only two forwards technically past their prime years. Sakic scored over 100 points a year later, and Draper is not relevant enough.

On D, Blake (36) and Foote (34) were definitely old, but that's 2 guys. The team also had a Regehr (25) and Bouwmeester (22) who were quite young. The other D were roughly 30 or younger.

In nets, I don't think anyone can question Brodeur as a starter regardless of his age.

Doan, Iginla, Heatley, Stlouis, Gagne, Lecavalier, Thornton and Richards were all in their prime years.

Doesn't seem like this team's issue was age.

http://www.quanthockey.com/olympics/en/teams/team-canada-players-2006-olympics-stats.html

Yes, the common refrain that Gretzky picked a team that was too old isn't all that accurate. The problem is that Gretzky picked a team that was inappropriate for international ice. The forwards are almost all correct, with the exception of Bertuzzi (Gretzky wanted to be a nice guy and pick Bertuzzi to help him get over the Moore incident) Smyth (Oilers and Hockey Canada heart and soul guy who wasn't suited to big ice) and Doan (similar to Smyth, except with Arizona). Even Draper was not actually a bad pick given his international performances and skillset. The bigger issue was the bad luck of Niedermayer going down, and also picking McCabe/Blake/Foote/Regehr. Only Regehr should have been picked at that point, and Blake/Foote were clearly loyalty picks. Replace some of them with Boyle (taxi squad) and maybe Campbell, and that team is significantly more effective in all facets.

Difference being obviously is at 25 he was never asked to play defense at the level he is asked of right now.

Thornton was Canada's checking line centre at the 2004 World Cup. He was actually very effective in that role, and was probably Canada's best player in the gold medal game.

Jeff Carter is kind of like the Canadian Evgeny Malkin. He's got all the tools and skill, but he is an enigma who really doesn't want to be the star. He skates well, is big and willing to play physical (without going over the edge), plays good defense, handles the puck well, and has a quick release and an accurate shot that he has no qualms about using. About the only thing he doesn't do at a top level is pass but even that has improved as he has played for the Kings.

On a talented team, he is the almost the perfect complementary player. He can play against any match up (don't forget that Babcock is not going to have the last change all the time) and is equally strong defensively and a threat offensively. He is probably most effective on the wing, but plays the center position well and can take face-offs. There really are no weaknesses in his game. Probably the biggest issue that he has had is that he always leaves coaches wanting more, but that said, he also does raise his game for the playoffs and international tourneys.

Not surprised that he made the team - he is probably one of the most complete role players in the NHL. He stepped up at for both the Kings Cup runs and for the last Olympics. There may be players who do certain things better, but he does everything very well with absolutely no ego and he has always teased that if he wanted to be, he could be a superstar in this league.

I agree about Carter. He, like Marleau before him, was nearly a perfect complimentary player for a team like Canada. Canada always has elite centres who can dominate the puck. Carter brings both size and speed, as well as an elite shot and defensive awareness.

 

[Barrie22]

Yes, the common refrain that Gretzky picked a team that was too old isn't all that accurate. The problem is that Gretzky picked a team that was inappropriate for international ice. The forwards are almost all correct, with the exception of Bertuzzi (Gretzky wanted to be a nice guy and pick Bertuzzi to help him get over the Moore incident) Smyth (Oilers and Hockey Canada heart and soul guy who wasn't suited to big ice) and Doan (similar to Smyth, except with Arizona). Even Draper was not actually a bad pick given his international performances and skillset. The bigger issue was the bad luck of Niedermayer going down, and also picking McCabe/Blake/Foote/Regehr. Only Regehr should have been picked at that point, and Blake/Foote were clearly loyalty picks. Replace some of them with Boyle (taxi squad) and maybe Campbell, and that team is significantly more effective in all facets.



Thornton was Canada's checking line centre at the 2004 World Cup. He was actually very effective in that role, and was probably Canada's best player in the gold medal game.



I agree about Carter. He, like Marleau before him, was nearly a perfect complimentary player for a team like Canada. Canada always has elite centres who can dominate the puck. Carter brings both size and speed, as well as an elite shot and defensive awareness.

About thornton. I never said he was no good at defense. Its just no coaches wanted him in a defensive role when he was putting up 100+ points and point per game seasons.

His line was also used as the shutdown line in 2010 at the olympics.

 

[86Habs]

Yes, the common refrain that Gretzky picked a team that was too old isn't all that accurate. The problem is that Gretzky picked a team that was inappropriate for international ice. The forwards are almost all correct, with the exception of Bertuzzi (Gretzky wanted to be a nice guy and pick Bertuzzi to help him get over the Moore incident) Smyth (Oilers and Hockey Canada heart and soul guy who wasn't suited to big ice) and Doan (similar to Smyth, except with Arizona). Even Draper was not actually a bad pick given his international performances and skillset. The bigger issue was the bad luck of Niedermayer going down, and also picking McCabe/Blake/Foote/Regehr. Only Regehr should have been picked at that point, and Blake/Foote were clearly loyalty picks. Replace some of them with Boyle (taxi squad) and maybe Campbell, and that team is significantly more effective in all facets.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. The team was poorly chosen, particularly on defense, for the international ice surface. Losing Niedermayer and replacing him with McCabe (instead of Boyle) on a d corps that already included numerous sluggish skaters and poor puck movers was more important to Canada's losing effort than bringing along Bertuzzi/Smyth/Doan.

With the way the team is shaping up, I will say that I would have some significant concerns about this 2016 team, were the World Cup to be played on international ice. And should NHLers participate in Korea in 2018, the loyalty factor may become pretty serious with guys like Getzlaf, Perry, Weber, and Bergeron getting up there in age and not being the fleetest of foot even in their prime. Should we win this World Cup, we'd have won three consecutive best-on-best tournaments* and it would presumably be difficult for the management team and coaching staff to move away from the core group they've had success with.

* Yes, calling this upcoming World Cup a "best-on-best" is a stretch.

 

[xxxx]

I'd like to see some new guys, but we already have them in Tavares, Seguin, Benn, or Stamkos, even if it doesn't seem so. Tavares didn't play much in 2014, he was just getting used to his new big role I would say. Neither Stamkos nor Seguin have played for the elite TC so far. Benn is still quite "new" and his chemistry with Seguin will be also something new for Team Canada. Add Giroux, and O'Reilly -who have never represented Canada at olympics - and this team is fairly fresh and new. The core of Crosby, Toews, and Bergeron, and even Getzlaf, is there pretty much deservedly.

 

[JackSlater]

About thornton. I never said he was no good at defense. Its just no coaches wanted him in a defensive role when he was putting up 100+ points and point per game seasons.

His line was also used as the shutdown line in 2010 at the olympics.

Thornton was a 100 point player in 2004 (his 2003 and 2004 seasons were elite) and was still used in the checking role, which he excelled at. I wouldn't say that Thornton's line in 2010 was the checking line, just that it was ineffective. That line was given an offensive role and played PP together. Toews' line took the tough defensive assignments.

With the way the team is shaping up, I will say that I would have some significant concerns about this 2016 team, were the World Cup to be played on international ice. And should NHLers participate in Korea in 2018, the loyalty factor may become pretty serious with guys like Getzlaf, Perry, Weber, and Bergeron getting up there in age and not being the fleetest of foot even in their prime. Should we win this World Cup, we'd have won three consecutive best-on-best tournaments* and it would presumably be difficult for the management team and coaching staff to move away from the core group they've had success with.

The best thing for Canada in 2018 would be to lose this tournament, in my opinion. The 2018 tournament will likely be a best on best, while this is not. Losing this tournament would signify that a changing of the guard is necessary. If these players win yet again, there will be many claiming that Canada still needs to stick with the veterans who have been successful before. This is a dangerous mentality with the 2018 Olympics being played in a very different context than the 2016 World Cup.

In my opinion, Canada success in the recent best on best tournament is built mostly around Crosby/Getzlaf/Toews winning their matchups at centre and Doughty/Weber/Keith being able to form two dominant defensive pairings. Getzlaf should be out of the picture in 2018, with McDavid or even a Tavares able to take his spot. Crosby and Toews should be similar to their current level in that short span. Replacing Keith and Weber, which I think will likely be necessary, is tougher. Doughty may be improving still, but others need to step up and lead their pairings. Subban has the ability. Pietrangelo looked like that kind of player but he's not progressing as expected. There is a decent number of good young Canadian defencemen out there though.

 

[therealdeal]

The best thing for Canada in 2018 would be to lose this tournament, in my opinion. The 2018 tournament will likely be a best on best, while this is not. Losing this tournament would signify that a changing of the guard is necessary. If these players win yet again, there will be many claiming that Canada still needs to stick with the veterans who have been successful before. This is a dangerous mentality with the 2018 Olympics being played in a very different context than the 2016 World Cup.

This is an extremely bizarre/backwards line of thinking. The worst possible consequence of picking a bad team is losing, so you want that to happen so that maybe it doesn't happen later on? The absolute worst thing that can happen to Canada is losing the 2018 tournament. Why would it be bad if we won the 2018 tournament and then lost the 2022 tournament? Why is it better to win the 2022 and not the 2018? The best thing for Canada is to win every tournament.

Who cares what age the team is, the only thing that we should ever be concerned with doing is winning every single tournament. We shouldn't be worried about the 2018 Olympics when picking the 2016 team, we should only be concerned with winning the 2016 tournament. In 2018, we shouldn't even be wondering about 2022, the only thing that matters at that time is winning the 2018 tournament.

 

[JackSlater]

This is an extremely bizarre/backwards line of thinking. The worst possible consequence of picking a bad team is losing, so you want that to happen so that maybe it doesn't happen later on? The absolute worst thing that can happen to Canada is losing the 2018 tournament. Why would it be bad if we won the 2018 tournament and then lost the 2022 tournament? Why is it better to win the 2022 and not the 2018? The best thing for Canada is to win every tournament.

Who cares what age the team is, the only thing that we should ever be concerned with doing is winning every single tournament. We shouldn't be worried about the 2018 Olympics when picking the 2016 team, we should only be concerned with winning the 2016 tournament. In 2018, we shouldn't even be wondering about 2022, the only thing that matters at that time is winning the 2018 tournament.

I don't understand what you are talking about. I would be content to lose this tournament because it's irrelevant due to the gimmick teams and the restrictions placed on only certain teams. Canadian management almost always trends conservative, so I would rather see them sever ties with some players after losing an irrelevant tournament (2016 World Cup) than risk going into a best on best tournament (2018 Olympics) with a roster featuring underperforming players that management feels overly loyal to. Canada has lost best on best tournaments, or made them more difficult than they needed to be, due to sticking with players because they had been successful in the last big tournament. I do want Canada to win the 2018 and 2022 Olympic tournaments, provided that NHLers participate, and I want Canada to win legitimate best on best World Cup tournaments as well.

 

[therealdeal]

I don't understand what you are talking about. I would be content to lose this tournament because it's irrelevant due to the gimmick teams and the restrictions placed on only certain teams. Canadian management almost always trends conservative, so I would rather see them sever ties with some players after losing an irrelevant tournament (2016 World Cup) than risk going into a best on best tournament (2018 Olympics) with a roster featuring underperforming players that management feels overly loyal to. Canada has lost best on best tournaments, or made them more difficult than they needed to be, due to sticking with players because they had been successful in the last big tournament. I do want Canada to win the 2018 and 2022 Olympic tournaments, provided that NHLers participate, and I want Canada to win legitimate best on best World Cup tournaments as well.

Well, I misunderstood what you meant when you said this tournament, thinking you were referring to 2018 Olympics, but either way the point still stands, it's always best for Canada to win every tournament, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[JackSlater]

Well, I misunderstood what you meant when you said this tournament, thinking you were referring to 2018 Olympics, but either way the point still stands, it's always best for Canada to win every tournament, regardless of the circumstances.

Usually yes, but not always. Look at Russia - they keep playing well at the World Championship due to sending a far higher percentage of their best players than any other country, which obscures for many the issues that exist with Russia once a best on best rolls around. There are times when losing can be beneficial if it prompts positive change. Since there is nothing to be gained by winning this tournament, in my estimation, I would rather Canada lose and avoid complacency.

 

[therealdeal]

Usually yes, but not always. Look at Russia - they keep playing well at the World Championship due to sending a far higher percentage of their best players than any other country, which obscures for many the issues that exist with Russia once a best on best rolls around. There are times when losing can be beneficial if it prompts positive change. Since there is nothing to be gained by winning this tournament, in my estimation, I would rather Canada lose and avoid complacency.

Good results for Russia aren't what are obscuring their results at other tournaments, it's simply either that they are getting bad luck, the sample sizes are too small, or they simply don't have the personnel to get the job done.

The best possible thing for Canada is to pick the best possible team for each tournament. I would rather win, and keep winning. I don't think that just because Getzlaf and Weber, and other hold overs made this team, that it automatically means Hockey Canada thinks they'll make the next team.
just
Edit: That all being said, I do understand what you mean, and I understand the point you're making, but the goal should always be to win, and winning doesn't necessarily create bad habits in these cases. You're making a lot of assumptions about how a 2018 team will be picked based on an outcome that we don't even know yet.

 

[readynwilling]

Hall has a slim to nil chance.
Nowhere near the complete player that the team needs.

 

[drpepper]

Given their respective talents & lack of experience at wing, I would expect Crosby-Getzlaf-Toews-Tavares as centers.

I think HC was salivating for Crosby-Stamkos in 2014 so I would expect that pairing along with Getzlaf-Perry, Carter-Toews, & Seguin-Benn. I would be shocked if Perry didn't make the team given his history with HC & his current form.

In addition to Perry, Giroux, Hall, & Duchene would be my guesses for the remaining forward positions given their production, position & youth. Marchand has had a great year, is a LW, & good relationship with HC, so he's a possibility but is also older.

With Vlasic-Doughty & Keith-Weber, there are one R/L d-pairing left & a 7th defenseman left with likely Brodie (L), Giordano (L), Pietrangelo (R), Subban (R), Burns (R), Seabrook (R) & Letang (R) in the running.

On talent alone, I would expect Pietrangelo & Subban to be picked. Burns is intriguing because of his versatility in being able to play forward. But I think HC will pick another left defenseman. I am giving the nod to Brodie for his youth, but Giordano is another possibility.

I don't think they will move from the previous leadership group: Crosby (C), Toews (A) & Weber (A)

Hall-Crosby*-Stamkos
Giroux-Getzlaf-Perry
Carter-Toews-Bergeron
Benn-Tavares-Seguin
Duchene

Vlasic-Doughty
Keith-Weber
Pietrangelo-Subban**
Brodie

*If Bergeron can play right wing, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bergeron-Crosby-Stamkos, Hall-Getzlaf-Perry, Carter-Toews-Giroux

**I think HC is pretty committed to strict L/R pairings but I can't give Brodie the nod over Pietrangelo-Subban.

 

[Hockey Spy]

Bye-bye Subban

Canada doesn't need P.K. Subban, and here's why:

http://www.hockeyspy.ca/canada-doesnt-need-p-k-subban/

 

[xxxx]

Canada doesn't need P.K. Subban, and here's why:

http://www.hockeyspy.ca/canada-doesnt-need-p-k-subban/

No offence but, was that written by a Senator-Leaf hybrid fan?

 

[50 in 07]

Given their respective talents & lack of experience at wing, I would expect Crosby-Getzlaf-Toews-Tavares as centers.

I think HC was salivating for Crosby-Stamkos in 2014 so I would expect that pairing along with Getzlaf-Perry, Carter-Toews, & Seguin-Benn. I would be shocked if Perry didn't make the team given his history with HC & his current form.

In addition to Perry, Giroux, Hall, & Duchene would be my guesses for the remaining forward positions given their production, position & youth. Marchand has had a great year, is a LW, & good relationship with HC, so he's a possibility but is also older.

With Vlasic-Doughty & Keith-Weber, there are one R/L d-pairing left & a 7th defenseman left with likely Brodie (L), Giordano (L), Pietrangelo (R), Subban (R), Burns (R), Seabrook (R) & Letang (R) in the running.

On talent alone, I would expect Pietrangelo & Subban to be picked. Burns is intriguing because of his versatility in being able to play forward. But I think HC will pick another left defenseman. I am giving the nod to Brodie for his youth, but Giordano is another possibility.

I don't think they will move from the previous leadership group: Crosby (C), Toews (A) & Weber (A)

Hall-Crosby*-Stamkos
Giroux-Getzlaf-Perry
Carter-Toews-Bergeron
Benn-Tavares-Seguin
Duchene

Vlasic-Doughty
Keith-Weber
Pietrangelo-Subban**
Brodie

*If Bergeron can play right wing, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bergeron-Crosby-Stamkos, Hall-Getzlaf-Perry, Carter-Toews-Giroux

**I think HC is pretty committed to strict L/R pairings but I can't give Brodie the nod over Pietrangelo-Subban.

All great points. Really like your roster. I don't really think Marchand has that great of a chance at making it, even though he's having an unreal season. I could see ROR making it over Duchene as ROR is a better two way guy and can play up and down the lineup, and played well in the World Champs. Although Duchene has the pedigree and obviously was there in Sochi as well so who knows. I think Nash could also potentially contend for a spot as well, just because he's a natural winger (obviously lacking), can PK, and has extensive HC pedigree. That being said he's injured right now so probably pretty unlikely unless he plays lights out in the playoffs/down the stretch.

I think they stick strictly with LD RD pairings, so I could see Subban being the odd man out once again, just because Pietrangelo is a better two way guy and we have so much firepower up front anyways.

 

[yourbestfriend]

I have nothing against marchand, but in my mind as an entire package he brings nothing to the team that duchene or oreily don't, outside of being a pain in the ass for the other team. If it were the playoff's, yah sure maybe i'd prefer marchand, but the WC? give me oreily. Dunno how much value marchand he adds to the team.

I guess an argument could be made that he's great on the PK, but that's the same argument for bringing in a guy whose a PP specialist. Do you pick specialty or overall ability?
Based on TC's past decisions, I'm guessing the later. I guess we'll find out

 

[drewstar]

Stamkos - Crosby - Bergeron
Benn - Tavares - Seguin
Duchene - Toews - Giroux
Hall - Getzlaf - Perry
Carter

Keith - Weber
Vlasic - Doughty
Giordano - Subban
Burns

Price
Holtby
Crawford

 

[JackSlater]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/chris-prongers-four-keys-to-winning-international-tournaments/

Pronger's keys to winning international tournaments.

Mostly about chemistry and goaltending according to him. Those two things and talent have always seemed like the biggest factors.

 

[Barrie22]

Keep subban off the team. Until he learns to be a team player. These turn overs every game at his own blue line costing his team goals against is why he should never be near a team canada when the team is picked from every single available player.

 

[Kudo Shinichi]

Keep subban off the team. Until he learns to be a team player. These turn overs every game at his own blue line costing his team goals against is why he should never be near a team canada when the team is picked from every single available player.

He's had 2 turn overs that lead to a goal
But i guess all the other players chosen never have turn overs right?
They all play safe and never try to make a play right?

 

[Budddy]

I have nothing against marchand, but in my mind as an entire package he brings nothing to the team that duchene or oreily don't, outside of being a pain in the ass for the other team. If it were the playoff's, yah sure maybe i'd prefer marchand, but the WC? give me oreily. Dunno how much value marchand he adds to the team.

I guess an argument could be made that he's great on the PK, but that's the same argument for bringing in a guy whose a PP specialist. Do you pick specialty or overall ability?
Based on TC's past decisions, I'm guessing the later. I guess we'll find out

Marchand has more goals scored than any Canadian player which includes Seguin...Benn...Crosby etc

Plays great PK and also PP and has great synergy with Bergeron

People talk about the Benn/Seguin and Perry/Getzlaf combo which obviously are great, but Bergeron and Marchand deserve accolades too...

I don't have too much of an issue with the first 16, but to me Marchand as a natural winger and his complete game would have been a better choice than Carter....

 

[sabresEH]

I know everyone wants to see a Crosby-Stamkos combo but what about a line of
Marchand-Crosby-Bergeron

 

[Budddy]

I know everyone wants to see a Crosby-Stamkos combo but what about a line of
Marchand-Crosby-Bergeron

Sign me up...

 

[cornfed]

I know everyone wants to see a Crosby-Stamkos combo but what about a line of
Marchand-Crosby-Bergeron

This is the exact thing I said to a friend. Bergeron plays well with Crosby which not many do.Marchard plays well with Bergeron. I'm willing to bet this would be Canada's best line.