WJC: 2017 Canada Roster Talk - Part 3

[wings5]

Canada was the better team by far last night. Out-shot them 50-36.

Who cares about shots? The game was completely even.

 

[masarume]

Canada was the better team by far last night. Out-shot them 50-36.

I think a large part of that was the OT where we outshot them by around 10 shots.
Parsons stood on his head in the OT.

In regulation it was quite even. I'd even say the US was better as their shots were from a lot closer and in high scoring areas.

 

[86Habs]

When it's all said and done, I'm fairly happy with Canada getting a silver out of this tournament and I personally attribute a lot of that to Ducharme's coaching and personnel management. He found the right line combinations in the knock-out round that allowed him to extract a huge amount of value out of his third and fourth lines, with production likely exceeding anyone's expectations. Who would have thought that Stephens and Cirelli would end up as our two best forwards? His quick hook on Ingram in the Sweden game was the right call, in-game tactical adjustments were usually on-point, and loading up Chabot with a huge amount of ice time after Myers got injured was the right call given our lack of depth on defence.

As a criticism I would have liked to have seen some adjustments made to the PP, particularly the first unit. Splitting up Barzal and Strome would have been a good idea, as well as taking Strome aside and instructing him to stop telegraphing his wrist shots before firing them directly into Parson's chest.

All in all, Canada did well with the horses it had. Having a healthy Myers would have helped, as would a deeper/more talented blue line and more production from Strome, Barzal et al. As time goes on I suspect the silver medal will look even better. Last night's game was an instant classic that I'll rewatch every Christmas, and it was a well-deserved win by the United States.

 

[bert]

People are being overly harsh with regards to Dylan Strome. He had 10 points in 7 games in the tournament. He is a fine player with a promising NHL future. It's not fair to take one kid and make him a scapegoat.

I really dont think you were watching the tournament very closely if this is your assesment. He racked up the majority of his points against weak competition. He had every opportunity to succeed and just did not come through or was effective against the good teams.

When you lose the gold medal game in a shootout there really shouldnt be a scape goat because its a coin flip. However if there was one player that did not perform and hurt the team most it was certainly him. Its also on the coaching staff to recognize he does not have it.

He is simply too slow, its not just his skating and his release its his mind too. He couldnt handle any pressure on the pp at all. I couldnt believe the play at the end of the period was for Barzal to pull it back to him for a shot. His shots are not getting through. He rendered the first pp useless. Canada had back to back pp's in the second and the first unit stayed on for 3:30 of the 4 minutes. They wouldnt come.off the ice! This segment could have been the difference. He is just a kid and i know this is harsh but i truly believe had Mcleod played over him this game was a different result. The change on the first goal by both him and Jost got the USA back in the game. Strome had plenty of opportunities to make a difference and redeem himself but he didnt come through. I just dont think he can play fast enough to be effective at the NHL level.

 

[NS Bluenoser]

I'm sure they went through a scouting report on Parsons, but it is up to the players to execute those shots not the coaching staff. This coaching staff made a not-so-talented Canadian roster come together in a very short tournament, and got them thisclose to the gold medal.

Looking at this roster there were a lot of doubts, but the coaching staff made something out of meh, IMO.

Ducharme coaches a fast paced, quick transition style and allows the players to be creative and the D to jump into the play. The trade off is some miscues in the D zone from time to time. His teams in the Q were typically peaking and playing well as a team by the 2nd half. When the team bought in, he had 4 lines pulling in the same direction. His coaching record at AAA/CHL and tourneys shows he knows what he's doing.

This team was very much a MEH roster to start, with many saying they'd be lucky to medal. They were 1 shot from gold and played an exciting brand of hockey. AND they lost one of their best defenseman to injury at a bad time.

No coach will make decisions that please everyone all the time.

I am a fan and hope he gets another chance.

 

[Vincenzo Areliti]

Was at the Bell Center yesterday for the gold medal game, here are a few thing I saw

- Chabot was incredible, best player on the ice for both team

- Barzal and Strome were terrible, they always look to shoot and make no passes, it's hard to play with a center that dosen't pass the puck

- Bean was terrible, worst player for Canada, turnover machine. Can't believe he was chose one spot before Mcavoy (who was the best US player) in the 2016 draft.

- Was not impress by Hart at the start of the game but he stood strong in OT and in the shootout

- Jost was the worst foward for Canada in that game, just brutal

- Neither of Dubois and Strome played like 3rd overall picks, they were outshine by late 1st and late round picks like White, Joseph, Cirelli , Roy, Greenway, Terry



Good job by yhe both team, most stressful game ive seen live

 

[Riseonfire]

Was at the Bell Center yesterday for the gold medal game, here are a few thing I saw

- Chabot was incredible, best player on the ice for both team

- Barzal and Strome were terrible, they always look to shoot and make no passes, it's hard to play with a center that dosen't pass the puck


Good job by yhe both team, most stressful game ive seen live

This is the 2nd time I have seen someone say Barzal does not pass and I have to question if they watched all the games. Did he shoot a fair amount? Yes (Selfisly I'm okay with that) but the dude was making slick passes left and right and was Canada's only reliable player to distribute the puck. His line mates were not too great either so that doesn't help.

Does anyone really think Chabot puts up the number he did without Barzal feeding him the puck? I don't.

 

[Giuseppe Sallo]

Strome? That guy was brutal. Chabotanator -- very impressed by him. Goaltending was iffy but second place/silver, I'll take it. USA were better this tourney. Sweden = ultimate choke.

 

[PecnoTrunk]

Maybe I'm old or maybe it's how the game has evolved but I can't believe how many times a TC player had a chance to just flatten someone in open ice and didn't. For years the opposite was true and oposing teams would really think twice about cutting across east west looking. I love the fast, skilled game but I think the physicality of past teams is what really set them apart.

I 1000% agree with you

The last couple of years I saw some really soft teams. This one being the softest

I look forward for next year where I see some potential heavy hitters. Skate skate skate hit hit hit

 

[therealdeal]

We were treated to an amazing game last night one way or the other, can`t complain about that.

I think we should be happy to have gotten a medal to be honest, which is weird because we were basically a coin flip away from Gold.

The coaching was suspect at times, and seemed to make odd selections on who got ice time. I realize you need to score goals, but it was pretty clear that our grinders were a much better option. Continuing to role Bean was a real head scratcher, he is honestly totally clueless out there. Barzal is a whole lot of flash with basically no substance, aside from fantastic zone entries on the PP he was not that good. Not only did he have the turnover on the 4th goal, he also picked up no one up in front.

Really confused as to why Lauzon didn`t get more time earlier in the game, same with McLeod. I think at some point you had to realize that Strome simply isn`t a game breaker.

Chabot was just fantastic. He used his size and reach and speed so well, and combined that with sublime puck composure, it was a complete pleasure to watch. He was Canada`s best defenseman in the WJC since Marc Staal.

Ultimately in that gold medal game only one of our supposed best players had a good game and that was Chabot. Dubois, Strome, Barzal, and Jost just didn`t get it done.

That`s what makes this tournament so great though, the highs and lows! They`re just teenagers afterall, and honestly they all played their hearts out even if they didn`t have good games. Great effort boys.

 

[Vincenzo Areliti]

This is the 2nd time I have seen someone say Barzal does not pass and I have to question if they watched all the games. Did he shoot a fair amount? Yes (Selfisly I'm okay with that) but the dude was making slick passes left and right and was Canada's only reliable player to distribute the puck. His line mates were not too great either so that doesn't help.

Does anyone really think Chabot puts up the number he did without Barzal feeding him the puck? I don't.

I was talking about the final game.

Barzal was probably the best offensive player for Canada in the preliminary round, but for a guy who's supposed to be a playmaker he didn't impress me. He was playing with the leading scorers of the OHL and the Q and he still found a way to shoot the puck every time.

Nice pass to Dubois in the third period vs USA tho, can't believe he miss an open net

 

[Vincenzo Areliti]

Really confused as to why Lauzon didn`t get more time earlier in the game, same with McLeod. I think at some point you had to realize that Strome simply isn`t a game breaker.

Him and Fabbro played really well.

at the end of the game Ducharme should played Chabot -Juulsen and Lauzon - Fabbro, then becnch Bean and Clague

 

[JackSlater]

There isn't much need for a postmortem this year. This tournament was obviously a failure, which is becoming all too common, but there are not massive issues like in 2013 or 2016. This team was quite a mixed bag, with some elements that were positive, some that were negative, and some that were perplexing.

Credit obviously goes to Chabot. Canada has rarely ever leaned on one defenceman so much. He played huge minutes and really did pull it off. As good as he was offensively, by far his most valuable trait was his ability to consistently get the puck out of the defensive zone. Credit also to Canada's Roy and Cirelli lines, which were nominally Canada's bottom two lines but were certainly the most effective lines on the team. I thought that Roy, Stephens and Cirelli were Canada's best forwards along with arguably Barzal (even with his uneven play). Those guys played a more traditional Canadian style that is very effective at the junior level, and Canada would be wise to cultivate players who can execute in such a way. Finally credit to Hart as well. He was bad in the preliminary round, but his play in two high pressure situations in the last two games was quite good. Goaltending was not the reason Canada lost this year.

The biggest problem on this team was its inability (or refusal) to make simple, clean plays out of the defensive zone. Too many times Canadian players would make the difficult long pass instead of the simple one to clear the zone, skate back into Canada's zone and lose the puck or stop short of the blueline and try to make a play there. This was the cause of multiple goals last night (the fourth American goal in particular) and in several other games. I thought that Ducharme did a good job overall, but he really should have forced the team to take care of its zone first. A big part of this problem of course was probably the worst player on the team - Bean. He turned in the worst performance by a Canadian defenceman that I can recall. Terrible (predictable) turnovers in the Canadian zone, weak on the puck and in battles and slow to make decisions offensively. Replace him with Girard (a player skilled enough to pull off what Bean thought he could) and Canada would have been significantly better. Just horrible. To be fair to him though, the guy barely played this year and Hockey Canada should not have penciled him into the top four for no apparent reason. The other big problem among the skaters was Strome. I liked Strome's play in 2016 and was optimistic this year, but other than his empty points in the preliminary round he was simply terrible. Even a player like Dubois, who didn't score or perform up to the level he should have, contributed in other ways with some physicality an board play. Strome was lazy and far too slow. He just seemed to want to float in the slot and hope that his linemates would find him. It's telling that he had four linemates and each of them was better away from him. He was effectively a black hole when it mattered.

There isn't much else that Canada could have done differently. Girard (or anyone) should have made the team over Bean and Steel arguably should have made it, but they picked a good team and Ducharme generally utilized the players properly. There are still lessons to be learned though. Canada only played an aggressive and physical game once all tournament, and that was against Sweden. It's no coincidence that the Sweden game was Canada's best performance. The effectiveness of the Roy and Cirelli lines demonstrated how that style is extremely effective at the junior level. It was a staple of Canadian hockey and should still be utilized. Many of the top Canadian prospects coming up don't seem to have that style in them, and Hockey Canada should look into why that is. Hockey Canada itself is an issue at this point. Canada has become a loser at this tournament this decade, going 1/7. There is really no acceptable excuse. Changes need to be made - not huge changes, but changes. Canada has gone away from the methods that were very effective in the last decade and the results aren't there. The people who decide these things should be answering for that, and Olympic results (the result of Hockey Canada's work last decade along with Canada's NHL braintrust) are not a sufficient excuse. That Canada just produced a weak crop of players at the 2016 draft and has another weak one coming up in 2017 only exacerbates this issue short term.

Anyway, this team came closer to winning gold than any other failed Canadian junior team has before. Losing, even in the randomness of a shootout, isn't something that should be accepted, but this team's overall performance was not terrible considering what they were working with. There are positives and negatives that we can take forward. On to 2018.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I think we should park the criticism and be proud of how this team got better at the right time, beat Sweden and took the gold medal game to a shoot out after a 20 minute OT period. We had plenty of close calls that could have gone in. We took the game to the USA in OT and for large parts of the game. Came away with a Silver and within an eyelash of a Gold.

 

[86Habs]

There isn't much need for a postmortem this year. This tournament was obviously a failure, which is becoming all too common, but there are not massive issues like in 2013 or 2016. This team was quite a mixed bag, with some elements that were positive, some that were negative, and some that were perplexing.

Credit obviously goes to Chabot. Canada has rarely ever leaned on one defenceman so much. He played huge minutes and really did pull it off. As good as he was offensively, by far his most valuable trait was his ability to consistently get the puck out of the defensive zone. Credit also to Canada's Roy and Cirelli lines, which were nominally Canada's bottom two lines but were certainly the most effective lines on the team. I thought that Roy, Stephens and Cirelli were Canada's best forwards along with arguably Barzal (even with his uneven play). Those guys played a more traditional Canadian style that is very effective at the junior level, and Canada would be wise to cultivate players who can execute in such a way. Finally credit to Hart as well. He was bad in the preliminary round, but his play in two high pressure situations in the last two games was quite good. Goaltending was not the reason Canada lost this year.

The biggest problem on this team was its inability (or refusal) to make simple, clean plays out of the defensive zone. Too many times Canadian players would make the difficult long pass instead of the simple one to clear the zone, skate back into Canada's zone and lose the puck or stop short of the blueline and try to make a play there. This was the cause of multiple goals last night (the fourth American goal in particular) and in several other games. I thought that Ducharme did a good job overall, but he really should have forced the team to take care of its zone first. A big part of this problem of course was probably the worst player on the team - Bean. He turned in the worst performance by a Canadian defenceman that I can recall. Terrible (predictable) turnovers in the Canadian zone, weak on the puck and in battles and slow to make decisions offensively. Replace him with Girard (a player skilled enough to pull off what Bean thought he could) and Canada would have been significantly better. Just horrible. To be fair to him though, the guy barely played this year and Hockey Canada should not have penciled him into the top four for no apparent reason. The other big problem among the skaters was Strome. I liked Strome's play in 2016 and was optimistic this year, but other than his empty points in the preliminary round he was simply terrible. Even a player like Dubois, who didn't score or perform up to the level he should have, contributed in other ways with some physicality an board play. Strome was lazy and far too slow. He just seemed to want to float in the slot and hope that his linemates would find him. It's telling that he had four linemates and each of them was better away from him. He was effectively a black hole when it mattered.

There isn't much else that Canada could have done differently. Girard (or anyone) should have made the team over Bean and Steel arguably should have made it, but they picked a good team and Ducharme generally utilized the players properly. There are still lessons to be learned though. Canada only played an aggressive and physical game once all tournament, and that was against Sweden. It's no coincidence that the Sweden game was Canada's best performance. The effectiveness of the Roy and Cirelli lines demonstrated how that style is extremely effective at the junior level. It was a staple of Canadian hockey and should still be utilized. Many of the top Canadian prospects coming up don't seem to have that style in them, and Hockey Canada should look into why that is. Hockey Canada itself is an issue at this point. Canada has become a loser at this tournament this decade, going 1/7. There is really no acceptable excuse. Changes need to be made - not huge changes, but changes. Canada has gone away from the methods that were very effective in the last decade and the results aren't there. The people who decide these things should be answering for that, and Olympic results (the result of Hockey Canada's work last decade along with Canada's NHL braintrust) are not a sufficient excuse. That Canada just produced a weak crop of players at the 2016 draft and has another weak one coming up in 2017 only exacerbates this issue short term.

Anyway, this team came closer to winning gold than any other failed Canadian junior team has before. Losing, even in the randomness of a shootout, isn't something that should be accepted, but this team's overall performance was not terrible considering what they were working with. There are positives and negatives that we can take forward. On to 2018.

Really good post-mortem, nothing to disagree with here. I wonder where the coaching staff goes from here? If recent history is any indication Tim Hunter or perhaps Kris Knoblauch will be next in line, given they served as Ducharme's assistants at this tournament. Or perhaps Ducharme gets another shot? I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that as I thought he did a fairly good job overall with a relatively mediocre roster (for Canada), a critical injury, and lack of production from his top two offensive guys in the games that mattered. We can always second guess some of the moves he made (playing Bean too much, not breaking up Strome and Barzal on the PP when it was obviously not working, not instructing the defence group to focus on simplifying their breakout game in the defensive end, to name a few), but he is clearly not in Spott / Lowry territory in terms of ****** coaches.

Interesting that you mention Roy, Cirelli and Stephens. They were in fact our three best forwards in the knockout round, I don't think there is any question about that. Team Canada has had somewhat similar players in recent memory - Lipon, McNeill, Leier, Rychel, Anderson come to mind - but they didn't produce at nearly the same level as the guys this year. Probably a matter of better player selection, more versatility to play a variety of offensive/defensive roles, being counted on to carry the water offensively instead of playing a limited, reduced "checking" role (ie, given more responsibility) and the inherent characteristics of this year's group. The final team was formed fairly early in camp, so it's not like any of these guys "won" a job based on camp performance. I can't remember if this was the case for the previous underperforming role players. Ducharme clearly had his eye on these players at an early stage in the evaluation process so that's probably the difference.

 

[Cane mutiny]

As a CAR fan I was happy with Gauthier's play. Tied for 4th in goals with Nylander, Dahlen and Raddysh in the tourney, and 4th on Canada roster in points... and all without much mention from most posters. Very underrated performance. Roy had a good showing, too. Bean?, not so much this time around.

 

[Skip2myBordyloo]

As a CAR fan I was happy with Gauthier's play. Tied for 4th in goals with Nylander, Dahlen and Raddysh in the tourney, and 4th on Canada roster in points... and all without much mention from most posters. Very underrated performance. Roy had a good showing, too. Bean?, not so much this time around.

Gauthier definitely came on when it was time to play big time.

Unfortunately Roy's botched attempt in the shootout is going to overshadow his overall performance for me.