World Cup: 2016 World Cup — Team Canada

[86Habs]

This is nothing new for Canada. Many of them have skillsets that translate well to the wing. I mean, I think Stamkos is an absolute no-brainer to put at wing. I wouldn't even consider him at the center position.

My 4 centers would be: Crosby, Getzlaf, Toews, Bergeron. I think that's a perfect blend of different playing styles, roles and talent that you'd be well-covered across the board.

Seguin and Stamkos as RWs, Tavares at LW. Giroux has become a very effective center, but he's played as a RW for a lot of his career as well. I don't have him as a lock on my team, but I don't see him as a RW being an issue. Tavares is the only one there that is iffy, but with Crosby's skill, Getlaf's power game, and Toews' overall game, I'd rather have an elite defensive player/possession driver that can give you elite faceoff ability on the right side (in addition to Toews on the left). Throwing more offense on with Tavares when he's quite poor defensively (relatively speaking), is used to playing with an absurd amount of O-zone starts, and can be very susceptible to getting outplayed in individual match-ups doesn't seem like the best idea to me. The 4 centers I mentioned seems like it would be a great balance.

Bergeron has always played RW internationally, at the senior level (he centered the 1st line, with Crosby and Perry, at the 2005 WJHCs). He can compliment any line from the RW position by taking faceoffs on his strong side (which is particularly complimentary to the LHed Crosby), and assume the more challenging assignments (i.e., the center's role) in the defensive zone. When leading the rush up the ice though, I'd much rather have the puck on the stick of Crosby/Tavares/Giroux than Bergeron as simply put they are better puck distributors than Bergeron. In reality, C / RW / LW are only positions on a depth chart, and when two guys like Crosby and Bergeron have such a long and well-established chemistry playing together, it really doesn't matter which is which. The results speak for themselves.

Personally, I'd move Tavares, Bergeron, Seguin and Stamkos to the wing and run with Toews, Crosby, Getzlaf and Giroux at center.

 

[JayKing]

 

[JackSlater]

This is nothing new for Canada. Many of them have skillsets that translate well to the wing. I mean, I think Stamkos is an absolute no-brainer to put at wing. I wouldn't even consider him at the center position.

My 4 centers would be: Crosby, Getzlaf, Toews, Bergeron. I think that's a perfect blend of different playing styles, roles and talent that you'd be well-covered across the board.

Seguin and Stamkos as RWs, Tavares at LW. Giroux has become a very effective center, but he's played as a RW for a lot of his career as well. I don't have him as a lock on my team, but I don't see him as a RW being an issue. Tavares is the only one there that is iffy, but with Crosby's skill, Getlaf's power game, and Toews' overall game, I'd rather have an elite defensive player/possession driver that can give you elite faceoff ability on the right side (in addition to Toews on the left). Throwing more offense on with Tavares when he's quite poor defensively (relatively speaking), is used to playing with an absurd amount of O-zone starts, and can be very susceptible to getting outplayed in individual match-ups doesn't seem like the best idea to me. The 4 centers I mentioned seems like it would be a great balance.

Having Bergeron at centre would not be a bad thing for any country, but I don't know why Canada would risk it when Bergeron is a proven commodity on the wing and Tavares (Canada's second best forward in my opinion) is not. You can even do what Canada did in the early part of the 2014 Olympics and put Bergeron on Tavares' wing. That line (with Benn) looked quite good in rather limited esage.

 

[masarume]

you know what I'd like to see

O'Reilly - Toews - Bergeron and Keith-Weber on defense. lol

Then see how long the opponents can keep a cycle going in the Canadian zone?

 

[masarume]

I'm very surprised at the lack of mention of Johansen and Giroux on a lot of people's lists.
Granted positions are very important, a lot of C's are talented/smart enough to learn their roles. Giroux has also played RW in his career.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

O great, charging full prices for meaningless exhibition games. What genius people work for the nhl. Congrats.

This is an insult to International sports, and a reminder, professional leagues should never run their own tournaments. This kind of stuff only happens with american leagues, go figure.

 

[xxxx]

This is nothing new for Canada. Many of them have skillsets that translate well to the wing. I mean, I think Stamkos is an absolute no-brainer to put at wing. I wouldn't even consider him at the center position.

My 4 centers would be: Crosby, Getzlaf, Toews, Bergeron. I think that's a perfect blend of different playing styles, roles and talent that you'd be well-covered across the board.

Seguin and Stamkos as RWs, Tavares at LW. Giroux has become a very effective center, but he's played as a RW for a lot of his career as well. I don't have him as a lock on my team, but I don't see him as a RW being an issue. Tavares is the only one there that is iffy, but with Crosby's skill, Getlaf's power game, and Toews' overall game, I'd rather have an elite defensive player/possession driver that can give you elite faceoff ability on the right side (in addition to Toews on the left). Throwing more offense on with Tavares when he's quite poor defensively (relatively speaking), is used to playing with an absurd amount of O-zone starts, and can be very susceptible to getting outplayed in individual match-ups doesn't seem like the best idea to me. The 4 centers I mentioned seems like it would be a great balance.

interesting idea

in that case I would have

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

 

[86Habs]

TSN's projected Canadian roster:

http://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-projects-canada-s-world-cup-of-hockey-roster-1.357770

Not bad, and the only substantive change I'd make is to replace Burns with Pietrangelo. I'd also shuffle the lines a bit, and probably move Giroux up with Toews and drop Seguin down to the Tavares line. Giroux would add a playmaking element to that line, while also being more than capable defensively assuming any line centered by Toews gets matched up against the opposition's top line.

 

[1Gold Standard]

TSN's projected Canadian roster:

http://www.tsn.ca/tsn-hockey-projects-canada-s-world-cup-of-hockey-roster-1.357770

Not bad, and the only substantive change I'd make is to replace Burns with Pietrangelo. I'd also shuffle the lines a bit, and probably move Giroux up with Toews and drop Seguin down to the Tavares line. Giroux would add a playmaking element to that line, while also being more than capable defensively assuming any line centered by Toews gets matched up against the opposition's top line.

I thought TSN would have ignored this silliness since they have no part in it... of course every talking head at SN has to tow the party line and speak favorably of it...but you get more honest opinions at TSN regarding this World Cup nonsense. and I really must come up with some derogatory name for it...because calling it a World Cup is an insult to true fans of the international game.

 

[SOLR]

Still not sure what Giroux is doing in any lineup prediction. He's not an international-level athlete (vs. international level hockey player). To play in world cups and Olympics, you need to be both an international level Athlete and Hockey player. This translate into physicality, speed, acceleration in the top 5% of NHL players for every one of these aspects (this is true for US-CAN-Russia-Sweden). Giroux is great, but he's like Spezza in his prime, he doesn't have the foot speed or the acceleration (or even the physicality) to be an important international asset. Talent ain't enough at that level like it is in the NHL. I would rather have Bergeron who is a stunning athlete first and hockey player second. Then there are guys like Gallagher who on the surface are much lesser players based on their NHL stats but who can play a winger role with more jump than Giroux could or natural shooters like Eberle to consider.

He might get into the world cup team, but only because the kids are excluded. Also, if he's in the conversation, Spezza should be there too.

 

[86Habs]

I thought TSN would have ignored this silliness since they have no part in it... of course every talking head at SN has to tow the party line and speak favorably of it...but you get more honest opinions at TSN regarding this World Cup nonsense. and I really must come up with some derogatory name for it...because calling it a World Cup is an insult to true fans of the international game.

Yeah, this is definitely an abomination. As a sports fan I love September because I get:

- The baseball pennant races (I'm not ashamed to admit that I religiously watch baseball)

- The early weeks of the NFL season

- The early weeks of the NCAA college football season, including the beginning of conference play

With my sports-watching docket already at full capacity, I would have made the time to devotedly follow this event if they had done it the right way, and made it a true international best on best. As it stands, if I'm honest with myself I'm not going to totally boycott it but I'm also not going to tune into every game like I do for the Olympics (and like I did for the 1996 and 2004 World Cups). Maybe I'll catch the Canadian games, or the U-23 team to check out McDavid and Eichel.

 

[86Habs]

Still not sure what Giroux is doing in any lineup prediction. He's not an international-level athlete (vs. international level hockey player). To play in world cups and Olympics, you need to be both an international level Athlete and Hockey player. This translate into physicality, speed, acceleration in the top 5% of NHL players for every one of these aspects (this is true for US-CAN-Russia-Sweden). Giroux is great, but he's like Spezza in his prime, he doesn't have the foot speed or the acceleration (or even the physicality) to be an important international asset. Talent ain't enough at that level like it is in the NHL. I would rather have Bergeron who is a stunning athlete first and hockey player second. Then there are guys like Gallagher who on the surface are much lesser players based on their NHL stats but who can play a winger role with more jump than Giroux could or natural shooters like Eberle to consider.

He might get into the world cup team, but only because the kids are excluded. Also, if he's in the conversation, Spezza should be there too.

This is quite a bizarre statement. While Giroux isn't exactly the best skater in the league, he's at least as good of a skater (foot speed, acceleration, agility), if not better than 2014 Olympians Kunitz, Tavares, Perry, and Getzlaf.

 

[1Gold Standard]

This is quite a bizarre statement. While Giroux isn't exactly the best skater in the league, he's at least as good of a skater (foot speed, acceleration, agility), if not better than 2014 Olympians Kunitz, Tavares, Perry, and Getzlaf.

I used to be a big baseball fan back in the day when I actually played...but am very much on the bandwagon with the blue Jays run...and I'll be watching baseball next September and not this Toronto tournament.

and re: this Toronto tournament...it would be a real dick move at this point for Hockey Canada to leave Giroux off the team for some marginal player (Gallagher) that is a winger. I'm not a fan of the tournament, but if it were me and Hockey Canada pulled that dick move, I'd tell Hockey Canada to lose my number forever, don't ever call me for any stupid trek to Europe in April and May and file for U.S. citizenship pronto.

 

[JackSlater]

Still not sure what Giroux is doing in any lineup prediction. He's not an international-level athlete (vs. international level hockey player). To play in world cups and Olympics, you need to be both an international level Athlete and Hockey player. This translate into physicality, speed, acceleration in the top 5% of NHL players for every one of these aspects (this is true for US-CAN-Russia-Sweden). Giroux is great, but he's like Spezza in his prime, he doesn't have the foot speed or the acceleration (or even the physicality) to be an important international asset. Talent ain't enough at that level like it is in the NHL. I would rather have Bergeron who is a stunning athlete first and hockey player second. Then there are guys like Gallagher who on the surface are much lesser players based on their NHL stats but who can play a winger role with more jump than Giroux could or natural shooters like Eberle to consider.

He might get into the world cup team, but only because the kids are excluded. Also, if he's in the conversation, Spezza should be there too.

What a bizarre post. If I remember correctly, you also made basically the same statement over a year ago. I certainly hope that Canada sticks to picking the best hockey players, as opposed to the best players who meet the SOLR definition of athlete... which somehow includes Eberle?

 

[SOLR]

This is quite a bizarre statement. While Giroux isn't exactly the best skater in the league, he's at least as good of a skater (foot speed, acceleration, agility), if not better than 2014 Olympians Kunitz, Tavares, Perry, and Getzlaf.

Kunitz was there because of Crosby. He was the exception and if I remember correctly started to play less as the tournament advanced, he couldn't follow the pace. (Correct me if needed, this is my impression.) (Despite Kunitz scoring the 3rd goal in the gold medal game)

Tavares, Perry and Getzlaf all have elite physicality to compensate their slower foot speed, Giroux doesn't. Getzlaf is probably in the top 3 for physical domination in the whole league.

I have competed at that level in another field / sport, at some point genetics and athleticism starts to matter more than in your "league". Canada has improved tremendously by using this strategy of picking the best athletes. If you go back to Nagano, this was the biggest problem with the team, the athleticism wasn't there. When they play in the NHL, this represents about 650 players. When they play for gold this is another "cut", of about 80 players. Talent and suddenly core athleticism start to impact the result a lot more. The Fins are making it a core tenant of their identity, they are always winning with effort over talent.

And this is why Jeff Carter is always a better choice than Giroux.

 

[SOLR]

What a bizarre post. If I remember correctly, you also made basically the same statement over a year ago. I certainly hope that Canada sticks to picking the best hockey players, as opposed to the best players who meet the SOLR definition of athlete... which somehow includes Eberle?

Hockey Canada isn't strictly picking the best hockey players. The after-Nagano process has been clearly modified to put Athleticism higher. Granted Eberle wasn't a good example, but when it comes to 12th or 13th forwards, roles start to matter more than your overall evaluation process used for the top 9. I was only suggesting that Giroux isn't a specialist winger that you put on your 4th line. Giroux is useful if one of Getzlaf, Crosby, Toews is hurt (I'm guessing he will soon be 5th in the list with the arrival of McDavid and there's Tavares of course.) Nugent-Hopkins in his prime will face the same issues has Giroux, Couture, Spezza etc.

And I'm not saying talent is not very high on their list, just that at similar talent they will pick the better athlete. Rick Nash and Jeff Carter are good examples. What hockey Canada learned in the 2000s is that talent alone was no longer enough. The good news here is simple, with Canada's depth we can pick an athletically superior team with the same talent, no other country can match our mix of both.

 

[JackSlater]

Kunitz was there because of Crosby. He was the exception and if I remember correctly started to play less as the tournament advanced, he couldn't follow the pace. (Correct me if needed, this is my impression.) (Despite Kunitz scoring the 3rd goal in the gold medal game)

Tavares, Perry and Getzlaf all have elite physicality to compensate their slower foot speed, Giroux doesn't. Getzlaf is probably in the top 3 for physical domination in the whole league.

I have competed at that level in another field / sport, at some point genetics and athleticism starts to matter more than in your "league". Canada has improved tremendously by using this strategy of picking the best athletes. If you go back to Nagano, this was the biggest problem with the team, the athleticism wasn't there. When they play in the NHL, this represents about 650 players. When they play for gold this is another "cut", of about 80 players. Talent and suddenly core athleticism start to impact the result a lot more. The Fins are making it a core tenant of their identity, they are always winning with effort over talent.

And this is why Jeff Carter is always a better choice than Giroux.

This is nonsense. First off, Tavares is a great example of a player who does not meet your bizarre criteria. He does not possess any impressive physical element, just skill and hockey sense. Second, a player like Giroux already plays almost exclusively against top forwards and top pairing defencemen in the NHL, many of whom are better than the defencemen he would face in the Olympics.

Hockey Canada isn't strictly picking the best hockey players. The after-Nagano process has been clearly modified to put Athleticism higher. Granted Eberle wasn't a good example, but when it comes to 12th or 13th forwards, roles start to matter more than your overall evaluation process used for the top 9. I was only suggesting that Giroux isn't a specialist winger that you put on your 4th line. Giroux is useful if one of Getzlaf, Crosby, Toews are hurt (I'm guessing he will soon be 5th in the list with the arrival of McDavid.) Nugent-Hopkins in his prime will face the same issues has Giroux, Couture, Spezza etc.

And I'm not saying talent is not very high on their list, just that at similar talent they will pick the better athlete. Rick Nash and Jeff Carter are good examples. What hockey Canada learned in the 2000s is that talent alone was no longer enough. The good news here is simple, with Canada's depth we can pick an athletically superior team with the same talent, no other country can match our mix of both.

Once again, it doesn't make sense. Nothing has changed since 1998 other than (since 2010) slightly more emphasis on skating. The 1998 Olympic team was very similar to the 2002 Olympic team, except that it lost probably its two most "athletic" defencemen in Bourque and Stevens. Canada still added players like Smyth and Peca who were not elite NHL athletes, and they won.

 

[xxxx]

liking the Burns addition, as well as O'Reilly.

 

[SOLR]

This is nonsense. First off, Tavares is a great example of a player who does not meet your bizarre criteria. He does not possess any impressive physical element, just skill and hockey sense. Second, a player like Giroux already plays almost exclusively against top forwards and top pairing defencemen in the NHL, many of whom are better than the defencemen he would face in the Olympics.

You are reading what you want to read. I'm not suggesting that they should pick only for athleticism.

And I'm not saying Giroux couldn't play and wouldn't be a great player for the team. Just that he's in Spezza's category of guys that are talented enough to dominate in the NHL but not athletic enough to overcome their competition for their position at the international level (Crosby, Getzlaf, Toews and now McDavid all have a clear athletic edge over him). That's why it might always be a perennial extra on the national team, just like Spezza.

And since Giroux can't quite get into those top 3 centers, then he's facing the prospect of playing wing, this is fine. But then he's facing guys who have better shots than him and better winger abilities. (The big 7 of Stamkos, Tavares, Benn, Nash, Seguin, Hall, Perry + the legitimate extras such as Duchesne, OReilly, Carter, Neal etc, without talking about the younger ones.)

 

[JackSlater]

You are reading what you want to read. I'm not suggesting that they should pick only for athleticism.

I am reading that you said Tavares has elite physicality, which is not true. You are arbitrarily deciding that Giroux is not an elite athlete, but providing no evidence of why he is not or why other players are.

And I'm not saying Giroux couldn't play and wouldn't be a great player for the team. Just that he's in Spezza's category of guys that are talented enough to dominate in the NHL but not athletic enough to overcome their competition for their position at the international level (Crosby, Getzlaf, Toews and now McDavid all have a clear athletic edge over him). That's why it might always be a perennial extra on the national team, just like Spezza.

And since Giroux can't quite get into those top 3 centers, then he's facing the prospect of playing wing, this is fine. But then he's facing guys who have better shots than him and better winger abilities. (The big 7 of Stamkos, Tavares, Benn, Nash, Seguin, Hall, Perry)

What does this have to do with athleticism? Spezza and Giroux fell into a numbers game that has plagued Canadian centres since these competitions began - Canada has too many playmaking centres. Denis Savard never played at a best on best for Canada. Adam Oates never played at a best on best for Canada. Ron Francis never played at a best on best for Canada. Steve Yzerman was cut at his absolute peak. Were they cut due to their athletic ability? No, they were cut because there were better players who played their role. Certain playstyles are more suited to the wing, I agree with you there, which is why I advocated for Marleau and Carter prior to the 2014 Olympics. That has nothing to do with athleticism though. Canada structures its teams recently so that playmakers are in the middle, which put Giroux on the outside since Crosby, Getzlaf and Tavares were better and Toews played a different role entirely.

Athleticism is just part of what makes a player as good as they are, it isn't some external factor.

 

[meangene]

I'd roll:

Benn-Crosby-Stamkos
Couture-Toews-Carter
Tavares-Bergeron-Johanson
Hall-Getzlaf-Perry

Duchene, Giroux

Keith-Weber
Doughty-Giordano
Vlasic-Subban

Burns

Price
Holtby

 

[86Habs]

You are reading what you want to read. I'm not suggesting that they should pick only for athleticism.

And I'm not saying Giroux couldn't play and wouldn't be a great player for the team. Just that he's in Spezza's category of guys that are talented enough to dominate in the NHL but not athletic enough to overcome their competition for their position at the international level (Crosby, Getzlaf, Toews and now McDavid all have a clear athletic edge over him). That's why it might always be a perennial extra on the national team, just like Spezza.

And since Giroux can't quite get into those top 3 centers, then he's facing the prospect of playing wing, this is fine. But then he's facing guys who have better shots than him and better winger abilities. (The big 7 of Stamkos, Tavares, Benn, Nash, Seguin, Hall, Perry + the legitimate extras such as Duchesne, OReilly, Carter, Neal etc, without talking about the younger ones.)

I'm confused - are you arguing that Giroux won't/shouldn't make Team Canada because he isn't an elite athlete (by your definition: physicality, speed, acceleration in the top 5% of NHL players), OR, are you arguing that there's a logjam at center and a possible (understandable?) reluctance on the part of the management team and coaching staff to move Giroux to the wing? One argument is reasonable, the other really isn't. By the way, Giroux started his career with Philly at RW and is a "natural" winger (though I find he's better suited to the center position).

 

[leafsfuture]

Giroux should be a winger on this team.

As it has been pointed out his first two seasons in Philly he was a winger. Even on the big ice at the Worlds you can see he has some "winger instinct" in him. For me he has the quality to be here. But it depends on HC

 

[SOLR]

I'm confused - are you arguing that Giroux won't/shouldn't make Team Canada because he isn't an elite athlete (by your definition: physicality, speed, acceleration in the top 5% of NHL players), OR, are you arguing that there's a logjam at center and a possible (understandable?) reluctance on the part of the management team and coaching staff to move Giroux to the wing? One argument is reasonable, the other really isn't. By the way, Giroux started his career with Philly at RW and is a "natural" winger (though I find he's better suited to the center position).

All these guys are elite pro athletes. Some are more athletic than others, genetics etc.

I'm arguing that Giroux isn't one of the privilege ones in terms of athletic natural abilities, and this is why he can't beat Getzlaf-Crosby-Toews. He never will, and there will be young ones that will beat him to the punch continually. (Mcdavid, maybe someday Sam Reinhart etc.)

The 2nd argument is simple and reflects on what you said: because he's not athletic enough to overcome his competition at center, he should play wing even if his game his better suited has a center. But because his game is better suited as a center, he also loses to a different kind of competition when it comes to be selected to play as a winger. Spezza faced the same issue in the past and was never selected in best vs. best competitions.

I know Giroux was a winger. He was always a play making winger. They don't fit any of the stereotypes for how you build a team. For this reason, they are rare. Marian Hossa, Ales Hemsky, Charles Hudon, Daniel Alfredsson, Peter Forsberg, etc.. The tendency is to use them as centers, to make them fit the stereotype. The whole point of my argument if you read between the lines is this one: Team Canada rarely go out of the stereotypes and for this reason guys like Giroux are a disadvantages in terms of getting a spot vs. guys who fit the stereotype easily.

 

[SOLR]

Athleticism is just part of what makes a player as good as they are, it isn't some external factor.

That's exactly what I am saying. Giroux's game is optimized to not compete on athleticism because it's not one of his advantage.

Savard, Yzerman, Oates (not sure how to explain Francis) are all examples of exactly what I am saying. Players that were as elite as their competition talent wise, but mostly, lost the genetic lotteries against those same competitors. I'm saying that a very elite level, athleticism is the biggest difference between them. There are exception in terms of skill for sure, but in today's hockey athletic differences affect the results a lot more than in the 1980s, when a Gretzky could exist. (See McDavid, he doesn't dominate the game strictly on skill, he's one of the fastest skater produced in the past 10 years if not the fastest.) Ribeiro proves that Gretzky could still exist, but his results would probably be different. For today's game I would pick Lemieux over Gretzky without thinking about it too much.

By definition Marleau and Carter are better athlete than Giroux. Make them do a Decathlon and Giroux will be last of the 3. Not because he puts in less work, only because of genetics. Giroux's natural athletic abilities are behind the pack. Spezza is in the same boat while he received more than Giroux at birth. Seguin is basically a more athletic Spezza.

The world junior's of 2005 recipe: stack your athleticism level very high, assuming that you don't have to give up on too much skill because of your national depth level and every other country that have the same skill level, not the same athleticism, will be at a net disadvantage. We have been using this strategy over and over again for a decade now.