IIHF World ChampionshipDiscuss International Tournaments like the WJC, Olympics, and World Cup, as they take place, or discuss past tournaments. performances.
E.Staal - Crosby - Giroux <-- World class
Hall - Nugent-Hopkins - Eberle <-- Easier minutes
Perry - Getzlaf - Stamkos <-- Tough line that can score
Tavares - Toews - Seguin <-- Best 4th line in the tournament
Benn
Letang - Weber
Keith - Doughty
Staal - Pietrangelo
J.Schultz - Like Doughty in 2008
Letang - Weber
Keith - Doughty
Staal - Pietrangelo
Schultz
Price
Ward
Fleury or Luongo depending on how Luongo plays in his new destination he could still be the starter for this team
I imagine an all Oilers PP with Letang on the second unit, like the Sharks PP for Team Canada 2010
Nugent-Hopkins will not be on the team. I do not think he is ready for prime time being that he is still 19 right now, and 20 next year. His time will come in 2018. Frankly, there are other better options than RNH. Frankly, i know he racked up a lot of points in the WJC, but he was nowhere to be found in the Semi-final Team USA game, a game where Canada needed him to step up. He just finished one whole year, which people forget, where he was very inconsistent at times. I am still a
huge Getzlaf fan, and one bad year, one stupid penalty in the WC (a blessing since Canada is now in the weakest pool in Sochi which they will easily win) should not disqualify him from the conversation. I would choose Getzlaf over RNH, call me crazy if you want, based on Getzlaf's resume, especially his strong play in Vancouver 2010. I also would not overlook Iginla. Despite all the criticism he took last year, he still managed 32 goals having an "off year". He has had 12 straight seasons of at least 30 goals, and his veteran leadership will always come in hand in Sochi.
Tavares Crosby Eberle
Hall Stamkos Giroux
Nash Toews M. Richards
E. Staal Bergeron Seguin
Perry
Weber Doughty
Pietrangelo Letang
Keith Seabrook
M. Staal
Price
Ward
Luongo
I'm quite confident in the spine of the forwards. I can't see anyone other than Crosby, Stamkos/Giroux, Toews and Bergeron as the centres in those respective spots. Top line is loaded offensively with three world class playmakers. I'm now convinced that Eberle should be on the team, but if more size and grit is needed I could see Perry moved into his spot. The second line features a deadly combo in Stamkos and Giroux, and it avoids any potential issues between Crosby and Giroux. It doesn't matter which of those two is the centre. LW was a big question mark, and I went with Hall mainly because of his skating and also because I expect him to be a 40 goal type in a year.
Third line is the dominant third line from 2010, with all of the players still prime aged. Nash is the biggest question mark to me, but the total package that he brings when he is on top of his game is too tempting for now. Bergeron is a tremendous fourth line centre, best defensive forward in the world with loads of big game experience. I've gotten over my displeasure with him at the 2010 Olympics and accepted that he was injured, and additionally that he is a better player now anyway. E. Staal brings experience and another tremendous physical package like Nash. I don't like the odds of any line going again the Canadian defence plus Staal and Bergeron in the corners. Seguin has chemistry with Bergeron, is competent defensively and has been great in Europe this year. He makes this line very dangerous offensively, and his skating is a valuable asset.
None of Canada's big defencemen or goaltenders actually played yet this hockey season, so there is no real change there. I still believe that the top five defencemen are all but guaranteed, and Seabrook has an excellent chance due to chemistry with Keith and being a returning player. The goaltending is a crapshoot. Price gets the pick because he's the most talented, and Fleury isn't there because of his potential for highly erratic play. I know that Luongo isn't exactly the model of consistency, but he has been a good international goaltender. Let's all hope that someone emerges in this half season, and next year, to be consistently great in goal.
Tavares Crosby Eberle
Hall Stamkos Giroux
Nash Toews M. Richards
E. Staal Bergeron Seguin
Perry
Weber Doughty
Pietrangelo Letang
Keith Seabrook
M. Staal
Price
Ward
Luongo
I'm quite confident in the spine of the forwards. I can't see anyone other than Crosby, Stamkos/Giroux, Toews and Bergeron as the centres in those respective spots. Top line is loaded offensively with three world class playmakers. I'm now convinced that Eberle should be on the team, but if more size and grit is needed I could see Perry moved into his spot. The second line features a deadly combo in Stamkos and Giroux, and it avoids any potential issues between Crosby and Giroux. It doesn't matter which of those two is the centre. LW was a big question mark, and I went with Hall mainly because of his skating and also because I expect him to be a 40 goal type in a year.
Third line is the dominant third line from 2010, with all of the players still prime aged. Nash is the biggest question mark to me, but the total package that he brings when he is on top of his game is too tempting for now. Bergeron is a tremendous fourth line centre, best defensive forward in the world with loads of big game experience. I've gotten over my displeasure with him at the 2010 Olympics and accepted that he was injured, and additionally that he is a better player now anyway. E. Staal brings experience and another tremendous physical package like Nash. I don't like the odds of any line going again the Canadian defence plus Staal and Bergeron in the corners. Seguin has chemistry with Bergeron, is competent defensively and has been great in Europe this year. He makes this line very dangerous offensively, and his skating is a valuable asset.
None of Canada's big defencemen or goaltenders actually played yet this hockey season, so there is no real change there. I still believe that the top five defencemen are all but guaranteed, and Seabrook has an excellent chance due to chemistry with Keith and being a returning player. The goaltending is a crapshoot. Price gets the pick because he's the most talented, and Fleury isn't there because of his potential for highly erratic play. I know that Luongo isn't exactly the model of consistency, but he has been a good international goaltender. Let's all hope that someone emerges in this half season, and next year, to be consistently great in goal.
Agree completely. The biggest question mark for me at this point is whether Getzlaf can return to his previous form; if he does, and proves that 2011-2012 was an aberration, it'll be hard for Yzerman to leave him off given his performance in 2010 (granted, that was on NHL-sized ice) and his ability to simply take over games when he's "on". I'm not sure who'd I'd chop in that scenario, but I'd probably lean towards Staal. The speed of Hall and Seguin on the wings on the international ice is certainly hard to pass up.
weber-pietrangelo
doughty-letang
keith-seabrook
green (big ice with little hitting, he was made for it)
price
ward
loungo/ fleury
Call me crazy but I don't think we even need a "shutdown line", everyone will have to be responsible defensively. We can roll four offensive lines & play in the opposition's end the whole friggin game. Above all else, Canada's advantage has always been depth. I think we should use it.
Call me crazy but I don't think we even need a "shutdown line", everyone will have to be responsible defensively. We can roll four offensive lines & play in the opposition's end the whole friggin game. Above all else, Canada's advantage has always been depth. I think we should use it.
Canada has never won using that approach; in fact, I can't remember if we've ever actually used that approach at the senior or junior level. I'll agree with you that while we don't need a pure, defense-only shutdown line (thinking of guys like Maltby and Draper, 40-point forwards who have made Team Canada in the past), we do need 3-4 forwards who can be looked to to kill penalties, match up effectively against the opposition's best lines, play physical,and have the ability to win key faceoffs. Canada's depth allows us to select players like Toews, Richards, Nash, E. Staal, Bergeron, and probably a few others than can do this, and also present enough of an offensive threat to keep our opponents honest.
Our most effective line from this perspective in 2010 was Toews-Richards-Nash; all three can be used in a "shutdown" role, or can be slotted in on the scoring lines. Versatility is key.
Letang - Weber
Keith - Doughty
Staal - Pietrangelo
Del Zotto
Price
Ward
Fleury
This is close to what I think the team will look like - although, I think Luongo will be there...and potentially the starting goalie (like it or not) - and I do not think Del Zotto has any shot at making it.
Canada has never won using that approach; in fact, I can't remember if we've ever actually used that approach at the senior or junior level. I'll agree with you that while we don't need a pure, defense-only shutdown line (thinking of guys like Maltby and Draper, 40-point forwards who have made Team Canada in the past), we do need 3-4 forwards who can be looked to to kill penalties, match up effectively against the opposition's best lines, play physical,and have the ability to win key faceoffs. Canada's depth allows us to select players like Toews, Richards, Nash, E. Staal, Bergeron, and probably a few others than can do this, and also present enough of an offensive threat to keep our opponents honest.
Our most effective line from this perspective in 2010 was Toews-Richards-Nash; all three can be used in a "shutdown" role, or can be slotted in on the scoring lines. Versatility is key.
You're saying the same thing I am. We don't need a "shutdown line", we should utilize our depth. We have guys who can score goals & also kill penalties. In '87, we asked Gilmour, Hawerchuk & Sutter to do these things. Hardly a "shutdown line".
You're saying the same thing I am. We don't need a "shutdown line", we should utilize our depth. We have guys who can score goals & also kill penalties. In '87, we asked Gilmour, Hawerchuk & Sutter to do these things. Hardly a "shutdown line".
Canada has never won using that approach; in fact, I can't remember if we've ever actually used that approach at the senior or junior level. I'll agree with you that while we don't need a pure, defense-only shutdown line (thinking of guys like Maltby and Draper, 40-point forwards who have made Team Canada in the past), we do need 3-4 forwards who can be looked to to kill penalties, match up effectively against the opposition's best lines, play physical,and have the ability to win key faceoffs. Canada's depth allows us to select players like Toews, Richards, Nash, E. Staal, Bergeron, and probably a few others than can do this, and also present enough of an offensive threat to keep our opponents honest.
Our most effective line from this perspective in 2010 was Toews-Richards-Nash; all three can be used in a "shutdown" role, or can be slotted in on the scoring lines. Versatility is key.
Because Hockey Canada likes to overthink their rosters, not because it doesn't work.
Our depth doesn't "allow" us to take players like Toews, Staal, and Nash: Their talent dictates it.
You're saying the same thing I am. We don't need a "shutdown line", we should utilize our depth. We have guys who can score goals & also kill penalties. In '87, we asked Gilmour, Hawerchuk & Sutter to do these things. Hardly a "shutdown line".
Agreed, though I took his reply in a different manner than you did.
Agreed, though I took his reply in a different manner than you did.
Well, I thought his first sentence was a little off, but he went on to say that guys like Draper & Maltby shouldn't be enlisted, used a pretty good example of the type of guys I think we should ask to perform meat-and-potatoes duties & then said that versatility is important. That's pretty accurate, I think. No?
I would be thinking long & hard about the possibility of taking Spezza, Neal, Sharp & Brad Richards. They don't seem to be on too many lists here and maybe they should be. I'm not sure I'd take guys like Bergeron, Hall, Perry, Getzlaf, or even Nash over these guys. Tough decisions. It always amazes me how deep this talent pool is whenever I sit back & think about it.
Well, I thought his first sentence was a little off, but he went on to say that guys like Draper & Maltby shouldn't be enlisted, used a pretty good example of the type of guys I think we should ask to perform meat-and-potatoes duties & then said that versatility is important. That's pretty accurate, I think. No?
I took your replies in the opposite manner.
We don't need guys like Draper and Maltby(grinders), I'd prefer guys like Bergeron (two-way players or grinders who can score).
Only thing that will hurt Canada is if they decide to play politics and bring along elder statesman like Thornton and Iginla who have "paid their dues" over speedier, younger guys who would excel more on the big ice.
Because Hockey Canada likes to overthink their rosters, not because it doesn't work.
Our depth doesn't "allow" us to take players like Toews, Staal, and Nash: Their talent dictates it.
Our depth allows us to take guys like Toews, Staal, and Nash and use them in bottom six, 2-way roles. On most teams they'd probably play in the top six; Toews may even by #1C on some teams (i.e., the U.S), but he's #3C on Canada.
- Like Doughty in 2008 
I took your replies in the opposite manner. 
