Olympics: Team Canada 2022, Part III

[Mathieukferland]

Yep, can't focus on the U.S at all, there is nothing that really separates them from Finland, Sweden, and Russia as our main threats. They are just one of 5 teams with a serious chance at this thing.

In my mind out of 10

Canada

O: 10/10 D: 9/10 G: 6/10 (9 if Price available)

Russia

O: 9/10 D: 5/10 G: 10/10

Sweden

O: 7/10 D: 8/10 G: 9/10

USA

O: 8/10 D: 9/10 G: 9/10

Finland

O: 7/10 D: 6/10 G: 8/10

 

[Mathieukferland]

To be honest, I'm just assuming he is on it, I don't see how he couldn't be.

His play and his built in partnership with Makar I think basically cements his spot on this team.

Even based off his play last year (which is what the October 15 list is based on) he should have at least been considered a top 15 Canadian defenseman, obviously this year he’s revved it up to potential Norris level but based off last years play he should have made the list

 

[BlueBaron]

Yep, can't focus on the U.S at all, there is nothing that really separates them from Finland, Sweden, and Russia as our main threats. They are just one of 5 teams with a serious chance at this thing.

I think this true but partly due to Eichel being out. The Matthews-Eichel one-two would do much to limit our C advantage and I would argue they have us at goal this year (Campbell may not even be on the team) which in a short tournament can mean everything. I'm not sure the other teams are quite as deep, not an other worldly gap mind you, but I think there is one. I have been wrong before though.

This goaltending issue has put us in an insecure state to be sure.

 

[Dominance]

For the younger canadian fans, and maybe older, there’s a narrative that needs to stop. I’m a Canadian and cheer team Canada on, but I’m also a realist, the narrative that team USA doesn’t have the center depth to compete with us couldn’t be so wrong. Now I’m not proclaiming team USA centers are better, what I am pointing out is you don’t need 3 elite centers to win Olympic gold.
In 2010 in the semi’s, team Canada in overtime was a pavol demitra crease shot that should have gone in but didn’t that could have easily saw team Canada lose that game. Slovakia’s top 3 centers were demitra, handzus and stumpel. Not exactly world beaters.

in 2014, in the quarters, Canada needed a late third period goal to beat Latvia, LATVIA!

It’s not that I want team USA to win, it’s that I think team USA will win.

you. Have. Been. Warned.

Well, let’s take a look. Here’s the roster that I have seen most frequently in the USA thread (and I sincerely doubt Zegras was on their long list)…

Kreider-Matthews-Kane
Pacioretty-Larkin-Gaudreau
Guentzel-Miller-M.Tkachuk
Connor-Zegras-B.Tkachuk
*Pavelski/Hartman

Slavin-Fox
McDonagh-McAvoy
Werenski-Jones
*Fowler/Pesce

Hellebuyck
Campbell
*Demko

…and here’s us…

Huberdeau-McDavid-Stone
Stamkos-MacKinnon-Point
Marchand-Crosby-Bergeron
Tavares-O’Rielly-Marner
Scheifele/PLD

Toews-Makar
Doughty-Ekblad
Theodore-Pietrangelo
Pelech/Hamilton

Price
Binnington
Hart

…and now let’s compare head to head:

Huberdeau >>> Kreider
McDavid >>> Matthews
Stone = Kane
Stamkos >>> Pacioretty
MacKinnon >>>>> Larkin
Point > Gaudreau
Marchand >>> Guentzel
Crosby >>>>> Miller
Bergeron > Tkachuk
Tavares >>> Connor
O’Rielly > Zegras
Marner >>> Tkachuk
Toews > Slavin
Makar = Fox
Doughty > McDonagh
Ekblad > McAvoy
Theodore = Werenski
Pietrangelo > Jones

Goaltenders favour USA in theory, but there is no reason to doubt Price and looking at the above, does it really matter?

Once again, despite the rhetoric, the US may very well not even be our biggest threat.

 

[snipes]

It's a good question. If we look back through best on best history....

2014 - Price has the pedigree and starts really emerging that year. Luongo was a strong backup option but it was clear at the time that Price was Canada's guy. Quality one and two option. Smith was having a good year that year but you might have questioned him as a starter. Not a lot of depth after the top two.

2010 - Brodeur was the incumbent with some gas left in the tank and Luongo was an elite but post-peak goaltender with loads of international experience. Solid but not spectacular top two. Fleury was ok but made sense as a young guy who might become the goaltender of the future. Not great in terms of depth.

2006 - Brodeur and Luongo were two elite goaltenders with good international experience. Turco was a solid third option. Gigeure could have been a decent third option as well, but it's mediocre depth wise after a really strong top two.

2004 - Brodeur and Luongo were both elite and experienced goaltenders who gave Canada a strong top two. A rare tournament where both of Canada's top two played a critical role. Theodore was ok as a third option, Turco also would have been a good third option. Even Belfour arguably could have been a solid third option.

2002 - Canada was loaded in 2002. Roy was the first choice but refused to play. Brodeur was great at the time, Joseph was good even if he shouldn't have been the starter. Belfour was over-qualified to be the third option even having a bit of an off year. Burke had a nice resurgence in 2002 and Theodore won the Hart that year.

1998 - Loaded pool. Roy was a great starter, Joseph and Brodeur were very strong backup options, as was Belfour.

1996 - Roy would have been a great starter but bad blood muddled things. Brodeur was a good backup option and Joseph was as well. Osgood almost won the Vezina a few months earlier but that was a product of Detroit. Belfour was elite. The other options were old guys (for the time) who were inconsistent, like Furh, Hextall, and the guy they ended up taking in Ranford.

1991 - This is around Roy's peak but again he wasn't there again due to bad blood and a poorly timed surgery. Belfour was a great option though they ended up going with Ranford, who was good when he was on (which he was in 1991). There was solid depth at this point with experienced goaltenders like Fuhr, Moog, and Vernon around who weren't consistently elite at the time but wouldn't have been out of place. Burke was an unspectacular but internationally experienced option.

1987 - Fuhr was a good starter and quite experienced by 1987. Hrudey was an uninspiring backup option. Hextall was ok and won the Vezina a few months prior. Liut was good even if people didn't trust him after 1981. Roy would have been a good pick as the hot up and comer. A bit shallow compared to the 90s and early 2002.

1984 - Fuhr was a good starter and fairly experienced by this point. Backups Peeters and Lemelin were ok. I think that Liut could have been a good backup option. Not a whole lot of impressive depth at this point. Smith could have been a decent backup option if he was willing to behave but I believe he let it be known that he did not want to be selected.

1981 - This may seem odd but coming off 1980 and 1981 Liut was a good starting option. It was shallow after that however. Smith was a solid backup option though he got hurt. Edwards was ok, Peeters would have been ok, but overall not an inspiring group. Esposito might have been a good option after a bit of a resurgence but he decided to play for USA.

1976 - Dryden was the obvious starter but he was injured. Parent was the obvious next choice but he was also hurt. Vachon filled in well and I consider him generally underrated. Cheevers and Resch were perfectly fine as backups. Ton Esposito also would have been a good option. Good depth was important here after the two best options were unavailable.

Overall I don't think that Canada's goaltending situation has ever been this poor, at least in the best on best era. The 80s was probably the next weakest period but you'd take Fuhr over the options as they currently stand and the depth options were a bit better.

Great post and knowledge on Canadian hockey history as usual JS.

 

[JackSlater]

I think that if Toews wasn't on the long list one of the media members who has a good read on these things would have floated that out there by now. Have to figure that he is there.

Also for all the gloom and doom of the goaltending situation, Canada still has obviously the strongest roster. You only need one goaltender and if the team in front is good enough the goaltending doesn't make a huge difference unless he gives the game away. The roster isn't as far ahead as it would have been in 2018 or as it was in 2014 and 2010 but it is the strongest roster. Of course the team can still lose and this time I'd take the field over Canada if betting, but team to team this should be the easy favourite.

 

[jj cale]

In my mind out of 10

Canada

O: 10/10 D: 9/10 G: 6/10 (9 if Price available)

Russia

O: 9/10 D: 5/10 G: 10/10

Sweden

O: 7/10 D: 8/10 G: 9/10

USA

O: 8/10 D: 9/10 G: 9/10

Finland

O: 7/10 D: 6/10 G: 8/10

That looks about right, I might put Sweden at 9/10 for defense but that is about it. The worrying part is Canada at 6/10 for goaltending sans Price, our major achilles heel and what a heel that is. Even with Price considering his lack of play and what he is coming back from I still might only put our goaltending at 8/10, possibly 7/10.

Not good, Price needs to come back and he needs to come back in good form.

 

[Arto Kilponen]

Even based off his play last year (which is what the October 15 list is based on) he should have at least been considered a top 15 Canadian defenseman, obviously this year he’s revved it up to potential Norris level but based off last years play he should have made the list

He got some Norris votes last season. Sure he wasn't the only Canadian receiving them, but there weren't _that_ many of those players.

 

[jj cale]

I think that if Toews wasn't on the long list one of the media members who has a good read on these things would have floated that out there by now. Have to figure that he is there.

Also for all the gloom and doom of the goaltending situation, Canada still has obviously the strongest roster. You only need one goaltender and if the team in front is good enough the goaltending doesn't make a huge difference unless he gives the game away. The roster isn't as far ahead as it would have been in 2018 or as it was in 2014 and 2010 but it is the strongest roster. Of course the team can still lose and this time I'd take the field over Canada if betting, but team to team this should be the easy favourite.

True, but i am pretty sure the goalies at our disposal can give one away, keeps me up at night.

 

[JackSlater]

True, but i am pretty sure the goalies at our disposal can give one away, keeps me up at night.

That's why I don't want Fleury and why Price (when good to go) is such a good candidate for Canada. At this level Canada needs a steady goaltender, not someone who can steal a game sometimes but also give one away. But yes, Canada doesn't have anyone at this moment who you'd completely trust. I've liked Hart's play this year and that's about it.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

Well, let’s take a look. Here’s the roster that I have seen most frequently in the USA thread (and I sincerely doubt Zegras was on their long list)…

Kreider-Matthews-Kane
Pacioretty-Larkin-Gaudreau
Guentzel-Miller-M.Tkachuk
Connor-Zegras-B.Tkachuk
*Pavelski/Hartman

Slavin-Fox
McDonagh-McAvoy
Werenski-Jones
*Fowler/Pesce

Hellebuyck
Campbell
*Demko

…and here’s us…

Huberdeau-McDavid-Stone
Stamkos-MacKinnon-Point
Marchand-Crosby-Bergeron
Tavares-O’Rielly-Marner
Scheifele/PLD

Toews-Makar
Doughty-Ekblad
Theodore-Pietrangelo
Pelech/Hamilton

Price
Binnington
Hart

…and now let’s compare head to head:

Huberdeau >>> Kreider
McDavid >>> Matthews
Stone = Kane
Stamkos >>> Pacioretty
MacKinnon >>>>> Larkin
Point > Gaudreau
Marchand >>> Guentzel
Crosby >>>>> Miller
Bergeron > Tkachuk
Tavares >>> Connor
O’Rielly > Zegras
Marner >>> Tkachuk
Toews > Slavin
Makar = Fox
Doughty > McDonagh
Ekblad > McAvoy
Theodore = Werenski
Pietrangelo > Jones

Goaltenders favour USA in theory, but there is no reason to doubt Price and looking at the above, does it really matter?

Once again, despite the rhetoric, the US may very well not even be our biggest threat.

I think you are really overstating the overall "dominance" of Team Canada this year, but to each their own. Some real wonky, cherry-picked comparisons here. Not to mention trying to find a way to make it seem as if the Canadian blueline is superior or even on par. You are right though that the U.S. isn't the only competition. Russia, Finland, and Sweden will all have good teams capable of winning it all. Should be a great tournament.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

I think you are really overstating the overall "dominance" of Team Canada this year, but to each their own. Some real wonky, cherry-picked comparisons here. Not to mention trying to find a way to make it seem as if the Canadian blueline is superior or even on par. You are right though that the U.S. isn't the only competition. Russia, Finland, and Sweden will all have good teams capable of winning it all. Should be a great tournament.

Personally I think Canada's forwards are clear above any other nation. There really isn't a weak point with how deep we are down the middle. I don't see that as even a discussion in regards to the states. Defense I see a lot of people saying this is a clear advantage to the states and I just don't see it. The US obviously has a great defense, but take a quick look at the season some of Canada's defensemen are having....we will be alright. To me Canada clearly has the best and deepest roster in the tournament....excluding goaltending. Which goaltending obviously matters.

 

[Dominance]

I think you are really overstating the overall "dominance" of Team Canada this year, but to each their own. Some real wonky, cherry-picked comparisons here. Not to mention trying to find a way to make it seem as if the Canadian blueline is superior or even on par. You are right though that the U.S. isn't the only competition. Russia, Finland, and Sweden will all have good teams capable of winning it all. Should be a great tournament.

It’s just a straight-across, player-to-player comparison. It’s heavily flawed because hockey is a team game but the immense skill disparity between the rosters cannot be understated.

As for defense, there’s some narrative started over the last couple seasons that America has some untouchable group, but it’s simply not based in material reality. Fox is a franchise talent; Makar is every bit as good, with a large majority believing he’s better. Slavin is a very good defenseman who’s baselessly put on a pedestal by some; Toews’ superior numbers speak for themselves. McDonagh is a good veteran defenseman; he’s never been on Doughty’s level. McAvoy is a Norris contender; so is Ekblad, who will finish ahead of him. Werenski is a top-20 defenseman; so is Theodore. Jones may have revitalized at least the offensive side of his career this year; Pietrangelo has been consistently elite for what, nearly a decade?

Or would you challenge any of the player comparisons?

 

[jj cale]

Personally I think Canada's forwards are clear above any other nation. There really isn't a weak point with how deep we are down the middle. I don't see that as even a discussion in regards to the states. Defense I see a lot of people saying this is a clear advantage to the states and I just don't see it. The US obviously has a great defense, but take a quick look at the season some of Canada's defensemen are having....we will be alright. To me Canada clearly has the best and deepest roster in the tournament....excluding goaltending. Which goaltending obviously matters.

I am not really seeing the U.S or any other teams defense as being a cut above Canadas either, I think there is not much to choose there between the U.S, Canada and Sweden.

 

[jj cale]

It’s just a straight-across, player-to-player comparison. It’s heavily flawed because hockey is a team game but the immense skill disparity between the rosters cannot be understated.

As for defense, there’s some narrative started over the last couple seasons that America has some untouchable group, but it’s simply not based in material reality. Fox is a franchise talent; Makar is every bit as good, with a large majority believing he’s better. Slavin is a very good defenseman who’s baselessly put on a pedestal by some; Toews’ superior numbers speak for themselves. McDonagh is a good veteran defenseman; he’s never been on Doughty’s level. McAvoy is a Norris contender; so is Ekblad, who will finish ahead of him. Werenski is a top-20 defenseman; so is Theodore. Jones may have revitalized at least the offensive side of his career this year; Pietrangelo has been consistently elite for what, nearly a decade?

Or would you challenge any of the player comparisons?

The superior U.S defense thing has been really overdone, I just don't see it myself. I find that one to be a rather odd take .

 

[Zybalto]

It's a good question. If we look back through best on best history....

2014 - Price has the pedigree and starts really emerging that year. Luongo was a strong backup option but it was clear at the time that Price was Canada's guy. Quality one and two option. Smith was having a good year that year but you might have questioned him as a starter. Not a lot of depth after the top two.

2010 - Brodeur was the incumbent with some gas left in the tank and Luongo was an elite but post-peak goaltender with loads of international experience. Solid but not spectacular top two. Fleury was ok but made sense as a young guy who might become the goaltender of the future. Not great in terms of depth.

2006 - Brodeur and Luongo were two elite goaltenders with good international experience. Turco was a solid third option. Gigeure could have been a decent third option as well, but it's mediocre depth wise after a really strong top two.

2004 - Brodeur and Luongo were both elite and experienced goaltenders who gave Canada a strong top two. A rare tournament where both of Canada's top two played a critical role. Theodore was ok as a third option, Turco also would have been a good third option. Even Belfour arguably could have been a solid third option.

2002 - Canada was loaded in 2002. Roy was the first choice but refused to play. Brodeur was great at the time, Joseph was good even if he shouldn't have been the starter. Belfour was over-qualified to be the third option even having a bit of an off year. Burke had a nice resurgence in 2002 and Theodore won the Hart that year.

1998 - Loaded pool. Roy was a great starter, Joseph and Brodeur were very strong backup options, as was Belfour.

1996 - Roy would have been a great starter but bad blood muddled things. Brodeur was a good backup option and Joseph was as well. Osgood almost won the Vezina a few months earlier but that was a product of Detroit. Belfour was elite. The other options were old guys (for the time) who were inconsistent, like Furh, Hextall, and the guy they ended up taking in Ranford.

1991 - This is around Roy's peak but again he wasn't there again due to bad blood and a poorly timed surgery. Belfour was a great option though they ended up going with Ranford, who was good when he was on (which he was in 1991). There was solid depth at this point with experienced goaltenders like Fuhr, Moog, and Vernon around who weren't consistently elite at the time but wouldn't have been out of place. Burke was an unspectacular but internationally experienced option.

1987 - Fuhr was a good starter and quite experienced by 1987. Hrudey was an uninspiring backup option. Hextall was ok and won the Vezina a few months prior. Liut was good even if people didn't trust him after 1981. Roy would have been a good pick as the hot up and comer. A bit shallow compared to the 90s and early 2002.

1984 - Fuhr was a good starter and fairly experienced by this point. Backups Peeters and Lemelin were ok. I think that Liut could have been a good backup option. Not a whole lot of impressive depth at this point. Smith could have been a decent backup option if he was willing to behave but I believe he let it be known that he did not want to be selected.

1981 - This may seem odd but coming off 1980 and 1981 Liut was a good starting option. It was shallow after that however. Smith was a solid backup option though he got hurt. Edwards was ok, Peeters would have been ok, but overall not an inspiring group. Esposito might have been a good option after a bit of a resurgence but he decided to play for USA.

1976 - Dryden was the obvious starter but he was injured. Parent was the obvious next choice but he was also hurt. Vachon filled in well and I consider him generally underrated. Cheevers and Resch were perfectly fine as backups. Ton Esposito also would have been a good option. Good depth was important here after the two best options were unavailable.

Overall I don't think that Canada's goaltending situation has ever been this poor, at least in the best on best era. The 80s was probably the next weakest period but you'd take Fuhr over the options as they currently stand and the depth options were a bit better.

Why no 2016 analysis?

 

[JackSlater]

Personally I think Canada's forwards are clear above any other nation. There really isn't a weak point with how deep we are down the middle. I don't see that as even a discussion in regards to the states. Defense I see a lot of people saying this is a clear advantage to the states and I just don't see it. The US obviously has a great defense, but take a quick look at the season some of Canada's defensemen are having....we will be alright. To me Canada clearly has the best and deepest roster in the tournament....excluding goaltending. Which goaltending obviously matters.

I agree with that. The American defence is good but nothing beyond what Canada has. I'd be happy to have McAvoy, Fox, and Slavin as Canadians of course but they're similar defences overall. I like how Canada's theoretical defence fits together and I like the experience those players bring as well. Two strong defences in theory but nobody is bringing an overwhelming group to China.

 

[The Professional]

Upfront I think something along the lines of

Marchand- Bergeron- Crosby
MacKinnon- McDavid- Marner
Stamkos- O'Reilly- Stone
Huberdeau- Couturier- Tavares
X: Perron, Scheifele

Is the likeliest scenario. It gives the coaches options for all special teams and situations.

 

[JackSlater]

Why no 2016 analysis?

I choose to treat 2016 like a bad dream.

 

[Zybalto]

I choose to treat 2016 like a bad dream.

Heh, you still can't deny it was a best on best.

Actually, considering the weird Europe/NA makeup, it may have been the tourney with the least amount of "scrubs" in recent history and with it being the most recent and on NHL ice, certainly the most relevant in trying to get a feel for the teams this time around (although 6 years is still quite a long time).

 

[JackSlater]

Heh, you still can't deny it was a best on best.

Actually, considering the weird Europe/NA makeup, it may have been the tourney with the least amount of "scrubs" in recent history and with it being the most recent and on NHL ice, certainly the most relevant in trying to get a feel for the teams this time around (although 6 years is still quite a long time).

I can easily deny that it was best on best honestly. Canada and USA did not have free reign to select all of their best players, basically the primary prerequisite for a best on best, and two of the teams weren't even national teams, the other prerequisite within this context. One of the gimmick teams even pitted players against their own national teams within the tournament. That bad memory is passing though and I would rather not discuss gimmick tournaments that by their very nature were not best on best. It has some relevance for things like chemistry I admit but all I know of it is that Marchand Crosby and Bergeron played well.

 

[Big Phil]

I think that if Toews wasn't on the long list one of the media members who has a good read on these things would have floated that out there by now. Have to figure that he is there.

Also for all the gloom and doom of the goaltending situation, Canada still has obviously the strongest roster. You only need one goaltender and if the team in front is good enough the goaltending doesn't make a huge difference unless he gives the game away. The roster isn't as far ahead as it would have been in 2018 or as it was in 2014 and 2010 but it is the strongest roster. Of course the team can still lose and this time I'd take the field over Canada if betting, but team to team this should be the easy favourite.

I'm okay with the goaltending. Price, Fleury and Binnington. You've got a guy who just reached the Cup final with a team that had no business even being in the playoffs. You have the reigning Vezina winner, and you have a perfect third stringer who won a Cup in 2019. Sure, there isn't the depth I would like in net as we are used to in other years, but the top end is just fine in net. Why would people be worried about Price and Fleury? I'm not. Especially with that team in front of them.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Upfront I think something along the lines of

Marchand- Bergeron- Crosby
MacKinnon- McDavid- Marner
Stamkos- O'Reilly- Stone
Huberdeau- Couturier- Tavares
X: Perron, Scheifele

Is the likeliest scenario. It gives the coaches options for all special teams and situations.

Not that it matters a whole lot, but why do people keep listing Bergeron as the C and Crosby the RW on that line? The last two times they've played together (all of the World Cup and parts of the 2014 Olympics) Crosby was the center and Bergeron was the RW. The last time Bergeron was the center was the 2005 WJC when Crosby was 16 years old.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

In my mind out of 10

Canada

O: 10/10 D: 9/10 G: 6/10 (9 if Price available)

Russia

O: 9/10 D: 5/10 G: 10/10

Sweden

O: 7/10 D: 8/10 G: 9/10

USA

O: 8/10 D: 9/10 G: 9/10

Finland

O: 7/10 D: 6/10 G: 8/10

Slightly underrating the Russian defence, in my opinion. It’s their strongest D in about 20+ years.

 

[Lockin17]

I would love to see a line like this.

Marchand-Dubois-Wilson