The Hockey PDOcast - Breaking Down the USA vs. Canada Gold Medal Game

Episode Date: February 22, 2026

Dimitri Filipovic is joined by Thomas Drance to do a postgame show for today's Gold Medal Game. We break down how USA was able to beat Canada 2-1 in overtime by getting into Connor Hellebuyck's huge performance in net, the looks Canada was generating but not converting on in the 2nd and 3rd periods, and Jack Hughes' overtime winner. Since it's such a big show to close out the Olympics we had to end it in style, so we brought Chris Pronger on near the end to go through our main takeaways coming out of this one and the players who stand to benefit most from it moving forward If you'd like to gain access to the two extra shows we're doing each week this season, you can subscribe to our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/thehockeypdocast/membership If you'd like to participate in the conversation and join the community we're building over on Discord, you can do so by signing up for the Hockey PDOcast's server here: https://discord.gg/a2QGRpJc84 The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.

Lessing to the mean since 2015. It's the Hockey PEDEOCast with your host, Dmitri Filippovich. Welcome to the HockeyPedioCast. My name is Demetri Filippovich and joining me here in studio, my good buddy Thomas Strands. Tom, what's going on, man? Not much, buddy. I mean, disappointing. I'm still disappointed, to be totally honest with you,

struggling to process the result, especially because Team Canada put together easily their best game of the tournament. One of the best games, period, we saw from any team at this tournament. and just a overwhelming mass of missed opportunities ultimately cost them. They have an extended five-on-three. They get a Celebrini breakaway. They get a McDavidie breakaway. They have McKinnon alone in front side of the net.

Hellebuck beaten, shoots it wide. You've got obviously the Devant Taves sequence. And ultimately, Hella Buc made the saves he had to make and more. And more. I mean, really, I think this could have been a 3-1 Canada win. to be totally honest with you, easily on form. And it just didn't happen. Tough way to lose in 3-on-3 overtime.

But, man, that was a stellar game, exceptionally exciting, faster than you can ever imagine. I think it lived up to the hype and then some. And despite putting together and being the more impressive team, Canada gets the silver medal. Yeah, it had been 12 years. Of course, since the last time we got best on best at the Olympics. Yeah.

It had been a year since the four nations final between these two teams. I think we had all built up an immense amount of hype leading into this one. And yet it's still not only lived up to it, but exceeded it, I thought, from a quality of play perspective and the drama and entertainment level and everything combined. I think it was the perfect capper for this Olympic end. As a whole, we're recording here pretty much right after the conclusion of the gold medal game. We're going to do our postgame show, breaking down all the stuff that mattered. our takeaways and then maybe at the end if we have time

do a little holistic putting a bow on the Olympics as a whole and transitioning to the stretch run in the NHL. Unfortunately, honestly, I think the place we have to start is not my favorite thing to talk about when it comes to analyzing and breaking down hockey games but I think we have to start with Connor Halibuck. Which I think is fair.

Yeah. Like I think generally a lot of analysis in hockey defaults to goal tending, and it's undoubtedly the most important position because it's a make or miss league. Either the puck goes into the net or not, and it's going to determine who wins the game more often than not. But Hellebuck deserves it,

especially with, I think, the reputation he's had over the years with the postseason performances, although I think we both thought he was more than good enough to win last year's four nations, and it's not the reason they lost, although he got outplayed in that overtime a bit, I guess, by Jordan Binnington. But he was phenomenal.

I mean, if you told me heading into this, one, this vaunted U.S. defense, which had given up by my account, 72 total scoring chances in their five games heading into this one. If you told me Canada was able to generate 45 scoring chances over the course of this game, I would have thought they'd comfortably win this, forget 3-1. I thought that would lead to at least four or five goals. And they only got the one. And it was one that was not Hellbuck's fault at all. It was a downhill rister from Kilmacara where he placed it perfectly above his pad under his blocker. If you hit that spot, you're going to score pretty much every single time,

no matter what the goal he does. And that was the only one that beat him. Now, he got the benefit of some of the stuff you mentioned with McKinnon missing the open net. A couple of things that could have gone awry, but when you play this well, you also earn that benefit of the doubt. You get a couple breaks that go your way typically.

And so he was clearly the MVP for this team, despite all the talent they had in front of him and the defensive environment in their system, he stood on his head throughout this one, and he carried them to victory, and I think he deserves all the praise for it. The save on, or the pair of saves on Devon Taves, were ludicrous.

I mean, instantly iconic for USA hockey, and then... I mean, he stared down McKinnon and Celebrity, the two best players at this tournament. Absolutely. One-on-one, and he stopped them both. And I thought both of those moves were good. You know, it's not as if I think those were poorly taken breakaway opportunities from Celebrini or McDavid either.

I mean, Celebrini had another game where it feels unfair that he didn't have three points, especially because he was the guy who hit McKinnon with the primary pass on what should have been a clear assist. You know, they end up one, two, in tournament scoring, and it feels like that underrates how dominant they were in terms of generating chances, but ultimately Hellebuck has the game of his life. You know, in an NHL that I think is increasingly determined by shooters as opposed to by goaltenders, Connor Hellebuck with the Chips down, you know,

playing one of the highest stakes pressure games that anyone could possibly play this year, especially, you know, given what was on the line for him, given what was on the line for this generation of Team USA players who've been so close, you know, or

were so close that the Four Nations couldn't get it done and then you sort of think about all the near misses for Team USA hockey at the Olympics over the last 46 years. to have the game of his life in that spotlight is pretty incredible, and I think should and will, and thank goodness, if you're a thinking Canadian hockey fan, at the very least there's the silver lining of the Connor Hullabuck narrative,

the big game narrative that surrounded Connor Hullabuck is done, has to be, it's over. This guy we can now just like comfortably and simply recognize as one of, if not the outright best goaltender of his generation. and so at least that simplifies a conversation that I think a lot of people knew, but we're tired of having, me specifically, front of the line, me. I was sick of the question marks unfairly hanging around Halebuck. I think those question marks are done, kaput, finita. Yeah, you were saying this in studio while we were watching this game.

You know, Celebrini winds up leading this tournament in goal scoring, and especially in the semifinal was like clearly their most dangerous player. got the most opportunities in this one yet again. I think he finished with 10 scoring chances of his own. My God. And that included not only the breakaway in the third period, but that power play late with a couple minutes left. He had like three or four looks in the slot,

a rebound on the backside, and unfortunately just wasn't able to bury them. Like there were some good Hella Buck saves there. I think Salbriny missed a net on a couple of them as well. It happens. Especially in the heavy traffic that he was operating. Yes. And, you know, incredibly bullish in terms of the outlook for both him

and the Sharks and Team Canada moving forward that this is going to be the focal point of the team along with McDavid and McKinnon certainly. Do you want to go period by period breaking this down? Sure. And kind of just like working chronological order. I thought the first period, you know, U.S. comes out with the one-nothing lead

off of a brilliant individual effort by Matt Boldie, which we can break down in further detail if you want. Sure. It was an evenly period, right? Yeah. I think shots were 8-8, scoring chances were 8-7 U.S. I actually thought the U.S.

left a lot on the table because they had some opportunities, at least three or four by my count, where they had a shooter in a prime area on the ice, and they were kind of looking for that good to great play, looking for a backdoor pass. I can think of one off the rush for Matthew Kuch, the power play one for Austin Matthews,

where I could hit some on the back end, and they didn't register a scoring chances because they never wound up testing Binnington or putting it on net. But they had probably as many opportunities in the first period as the rest of the game combined, I'd say. And you come out of that and you're expecting this pushback from Canada the way we've seen the past two games when they've been down heading into the second period.

And we certainly got it. Like I thought coming into the second, you saw a lot of offensive zone pressure. I thought it was an interesting adjustment by John Cooper. It looked like he put McDavid with the stone, Marner combo. And I thought both those guys were great as well. Marner in particular, you know, if one of these balances goes a different way, we're coming out of this talking about a big game Mitch Masterclass because he set up so many scoring chances including that table where he's cycling eye in the zone waiting for the window to open and hits

him in front and I thought he was phenomenal probably their fourth best or maybe even third best ahead of McKinnon because I know McKinnon had a lot of looks but he was clearly their third best especially a 5-1-5 and clearly not 100%. And in overtime I thought McKinnon really had a tough go three-on-three you know anyway we can get to the three-on-three three later. But let's get let's do the moldy goal. Yeah. So the boldie goal, I think there's sort of two things that are,

are worth noting in terms of the buildup, aside from the fact that wow, Matt Boldie really fast and wow Matt Boldie really skilled, because he is a nasty boy. The also the Cajonist to just challenge Taves McCar two on one or one on two like that. But he had space to do it. We'll get to that. I thought the Matthews beating McKinnon to that race and sort of winning the. battle angling the puck perfectly to boldie, allowing him to sort of, you know, challenge McCarr and Taves vertically, I thought was lovely.

That was a great bit of work from Matthews. And I think encapsulated a lot of what we saw in the first 20 minutes where Ikel and Matthews in particular, but also guys like Jack Hughes had all these incredible back checking sequences. It felt like Canada couldn't get the East West game moving at all at that point. And Hela Bucks obviously going to stop anything that you're. attacking him with in straight lines. And so in that sort of period, I felt like that was a significant dynamic. And I felt like Matthews outfoxing McKinnon on that, you know, sort of loose puck on

the wall, that 50-50 puck. I felt like encapsulated sort of how that first period went pretty well. McCar and Taves, and I think actually Taves is in position. I think McCar isn't quite, but you need to get hip-to-hip to prevent the split there. You know, their partners and they're great players. and they both had great games, by the way. But in that moment, in that moment, that was an error. And then Boldie took full advantage.

And that was a great little move to sort of fake five hole and beat Bennington short side. I don't think it was an unstoppable shot. Like that would have been. I mean, it was cheeky because I think a lot of less skilled players in that situation kind of try to see the play through and go fully on the back end wide and try to get the goalie moving later. I think Bennington was expecting that.

And then he just slipped it back the other way, with a soft touch. It was lovely, but also I think given, you know, given what Helibuck was able to fight off, right? I mean, that is a huge moment in the game. And who knows if it looks differently, if Canada doesn't go down at that point, but brilliant work, obviously, from Boldie,

and, you know, I thought Matthews deserved a ton of credit there too. I thought Matthews' is defensive game, and it was solid throughout, like, at least positionally and as an absorbed defender. Yeah, but the first period was immaculate. The first period was immaculate, and Connor McDavid had nothing and he was all around it in terms of frustrating 97. You know, I thought his work in the first period, not just to help spring boldy and make sure that America was able to play with the lead,

but also, you know, to prevent Canada's first line from getting out of the gates quickly was immense. Yeah, I think by my count it was the first, or it was the only period of this tournament that Connor McDavid did not register a single scoring chance contribution. There were a couple promising opportunities, and I was noting to you while we were watching it, It felt like every time Canada made one of those lead passes were kind of something into space where we're accustomed to seeing one of their forwards skate into it. There would just be a U.S. forward and it was off in Matthews, but I'd include Ikel Larkin and Brock Nelson in this. They all made terrific defensive plays throughout that first period breaking stuff up.

I have two other notes on the first period. One, I cannot believe that Dylan Larkin survived that hit behind the net by Tom Wilson. I thought live, like it was obviously a violent collision. The fact that he got up and skated off. and didn't miss a shift before we saw a replay. I was like, oh, he must have evaded it in the nick of time. Like, he must have like softened the blow. And then you watch it and you're like,

he went shoulder and head first into the boards at such an awkward angle. After the initial. And what an unbelievable dog that he just came back, just kept playing and had a good game. And then the other one was not to beat a dead horse here. And, you know, on the one hand, you look at the process and it's like you generate 45 scoring chances, probably at least 20 to 25 of them were high danger.

You play this game 10 times over. you expect a significant portion of them to result in like three, four goals at the very least. And so it's 60, like I'd say 60% of the time this is a Canada regulation way. And so it's tough to quibble with it. Yeah. Because they got their looks and they generated much more than I expected. I do think this was my fear from an efficiency perspective of some of the decisions they made in the blue line. And we saw John Cooper yet again, inexplicably.

I thought he got better at it as the game went along. but in the first period, pretty much every time they had an offensive zone draw with the McDavid line for whatever reason you saw Colton Praker out there with him and there were a bunch of backbreaking sequences where they'd go low to high and get nothing off of it. He had one instance in particular or he just for no reason dumped it in from behind the red line and resulted in an icing. They kind of killed a lot of momentum they'd been building previously.

In the third period, he had a Cody CC-esque sequence where like... shots. Thomas Harley kept setting him up and he kept just bombing it and one missed about as wide as as the CC shot from the bubble and you certainly never want to go full Cody CC, especially in the offensive zone. That's about all I have on the first period. I think we can get into the second safely. Yeah. At that point and it was an entirely different game in terms of the process and the way it was played out. 100%. Just to come back to the Pareko icing, it was on one of those sequences where Canada had the hard rims going consecutive shifts. Like a play just to put it back. deep and you've got fresh forwards for checking against tired defenders and instead the dynamic completely flips. So that was a tough one. I know exactly the one you're you're referencing. At that point, by the way, I thought Team USA felt pretty in control. Canada had sort of maybe a slight edge in chances, but at that point in the game, I thought, oh boy, this team USA is going to be incredibly difficult to break down the rest of the way. Yep. And in the second period, as I said, I think the McDavid unit with Martin and Stone in particular had a bunch of great offensive zone sequences where they were keeping them with pressure.

And they wound up drawing the 5-1-3, which they obviously didn't convert on. But it came off- That was an unbelievable shift from McCar. Well, the first penalty is Jake Gensel skating through the neutral zone. Mark Stone, as he's done a million times in the NHL, puts a stick down, pickpockets, and then Hagle skates into the loose puck, draws a penalty on Gensel. And then McCar with a rush opportunity on the 5-1-4 draw. I didn't love necessarily the five on three Canada had there. I thought, you know, it didn't help that the team USA won a couple of defensive zone draws,

was able to clear and kill some time, but then the shots they were settling for were looking, there was one McKinnon, one-timer that felt a little erratic and unnecessary, and that a lot of stuff kind of from not ideal angles in tight that Hellbuck was able to stop, but still, like kept building momentum, creating this feeling of inevitability of finally breaking through and they ultimately did later in the period on the McCargoal. I thought, you know, Binnington's going to get outshined here because his counterpart was the MVP of the game. I thought Bennington in the second period was huge in keeping this game won nothing, though. I can recall the, there was a turnover by Taves through the middle that wound up on Brock Nelson's

stick and Bennington stopped that. Then there were two Tage Thompson opportunities and, you know, it was really white-knuckling time whenever that Jack Hughes, Dylan, Larson. Archonage Thompson line was out there against the Bennett line. I think Dowdy was out there with them, regrettably, for a lot of those shifts, and those were the best looks Team USA was generating. Yeah, and Bennington was good in this game. I mean, that must be said, right? You know, you were sort of mentioning the stuff left on the table offensively

as a result of the composition of the Canadian Blue Line. I think that's mostly fair. Although, I mean, it's very clear that Canada built the sort of team that was capable of a performance like this. It would have been nice having any of Matthew Schaefer. for Evan Bouchard, Jacobs-Crickrin, Dobson, Brandon Montour, like you go on and on, anyone just being on the... One more guy, I think, would have been... The trigger man on one of those offensive zone draws you win, D-to-D coming downhill. I think that's fair.

I think that's fair, but, you know, like, starting Bennington was not the reason Canada lost, right? It was finishing at the other end and Helibuck putting together a legendary performance. But, yeah, I mean, look, I thought the... I thought in the second period there were a couple changes that Cooper... made that paid dividends, obviously Horvatt started to be used more as a specialist in the second period. I actually thought Cooper got away from that a bit in the third. And I don't know that like there were some offensive zone sequences where I would have liked to see Horvat be out there to try and get the win. So anyway, I thought that change paid dividends obviously results in

the McCar goal directly with a great little pick play from Brandon Hagel too. Well, and don't underrate the, because Horvatt, I don't know if he even wants to. winds up getting the win on the draw. It's kind of like a 50-50 puck that just goes laterally to the wall. And Suzuki beats Jake Sanderson there, I believe, to it to initially retrieve possession. And then Hegel sets that little pick on a boldie. And then it winds up working around D-to-D for the Makara shot. So everyone kind of checked in on that one.

I thought Makar was probably the best skater for either team today. To be totally honest with you, I thought a little misstep on the Boldie goal. but that aside, I thought he was exceptional. He was pushing for sure. That second period, he really was spearheading a lot of it. He previous to the goal, there was that play. I believe it was McDavid coming around the net and finds him pretty much in the same spot that he wound up ultimately scoring from.

And so he got a bunch of good looks. And Taves as well was pushing. He had the one turnover to Brock Nelson, but he had a couple of plays on some of those scrambles, even in the third period, where he would tie up a U.S. forward that looked like they had an open cage to shoot at, and then offensively, was in places that would lead to scoring chances and goals and didn't wind up getting one, but was very active. And so I thought that pair was awesome. And to Cooper's credit, I thought, and as the game went along in the third period, like, those guys finally were getting

the lion's share of the offensive zone draws and shifts. And so it's unsurprising. They were much more efficient and successful in those. The other thing they started doing more in the second period was bumping Marner around the entire lineup. And I thought that was like enormous. I thought Marner was probably Canada's second or third best forward today in terms of what he was generating, especially when you combine it with how he played on the penalty kill. I thought he was brilliant. He set up six scoring chances.

Yeah, he was ludicrous. He felt he felt like he was in with a shot to just completely dissect the American defensive structure on almost every single shift. Really, really good game from Marner. Yeah, coming back to McCar really quick, I think this was probably a bad day for my longstanding Hughes over McCar agenda. I thought actually, surprisingly, and obviously, he easily could have gotten the golden goal, if not for a phenomenal Bittington Glove-save and overtime.

But I thought, as the game went on, there just wasn't a lot of that, like, terrifying Quinn Hughes puck possession. There were a couple sequences where I thought he started to sort of dance at the blue line, and guys like Seth Jarvis, guys like Hagle did an awesome job, sort of bottling him up, I thought. So I thought McCar ultimately, like, as well, we as we come out of this game, I thought McCar came out having looked like the most impactful skater for either team. And I do think that that's, you know, something worth noting and appreciating because that was a really high level performance from him. Yeah, it's interesting because I didn't think, like, you know, we talked a lot about this blue line for the U.S. and how mobile it is and

how some of their retrieval ability would give them a huge edge in this type of tournament that It was very dump and chase heavy. And I thought on the initial retrievals throughout this game, I thought they were fine. Like, I can't recall too many instances where they made a backbreaking mistake and led to a turnover an immediate scoring chance. But they weren't really connecting plays up the ice either, right? So I feel like Team Canada was breaking up a lot of stuff in the neutral zone and then just kind of keeping them moving back in their direction.

And then after two or three times of doing that in close succession, they'd get frustrated and there'd be icing. and then that led to the Macar goal in the second period. So I thought Canada was having a lot of success with that. But I thought they held up for the most part. Like, if anything, the forwards might have let them down a little bit because they just weren't like anchoring as well in the neutral zone or really making a lot of plays to help them out.

But yeah, you're right. It wasn't that the Americans' speed edge mattered on Boldie's goal and at three on three. But, you know, I thought it was going, I thought America was going to win this game in the news. neutral zone, or at least was going to have control. From a possession perspective, it was very least. I thought they were going to be impossible to enter the zone against in Canada, got loose

off the rush on a number of occasions. I thought they'd be impossible to Forecheck and Canada got to their cycle game. So it was actually a pretty, I found it pretty surprising the extent to which the edges that I felt most confident in the United States having going into this game, like really didn't play. I think that's a credit honestly to how Team Canada was able to just get after it, for check and slowly churn this game. their direction. Yeah, the scoring chances by period were 8, 7 U.S. in the first, 17 to 6,

Canada in the second, 19 to 7 Canada in the third. And so they just kept building. And in the third, I'd say probably 12 of those 19 were like great A's. Yeah. And they missed the net and a couple Hela Bucks stopped. The rest, I mean, any notes specifically on the third, because it was kind of more of the same of what we were saying in the second, you had the Celebrini breakaway, you had the McKinnon missing the net on the far side. You had the, you had the, the McKinnon, um, missing the far side. You the Sam Bennett tragic four-minute minor, which didn't wind up costing them because they killed off the first two. And then, I believe it was Boer Horbat drew the penalty on Jack Hughes going back the other way to give Canada their own powerplay opportunity near the end. Yeah, I mean,

the U.S. had some looks in the third, certainly on that power play, right? Like, there was the Jack I go one-timer, and then Matthew Kuch was in front, and Taves and Horvatt, bottled that up at the last second. A couple hairy moments. I thought both goalies were excellent. like even though the the shot volume for the U.S. was was low they pretty much had the same amount of scoring chances matching their shot total like every look they got felt like a very dangerous one and Bennington made a lot of saves any notes on on the third specifically I mean I just thought that was Canada's best period yeah and I thought the second was was just because like the first seemed so ominous in terms of my expectations for like some of their struggles against this

team and then the fact that they were able to get it going and really pile up the chances like made you at least feel like all right they're back in the game they're playing like the better team and then tied it heading into the third and so I thought that was the most consequential period but I guess ultimately the third just some of the blown opportunities leaving that on the table forced the overtime to begin with it was just such a barrage of quality looks you know like it really felt like it really felt like America was hanging on in that third period right that the team Canada was like up against the clock in a level game, right, to just avoid this being settled at three-on-three, ultimately.

You know, and the U.S. penalty killed did a pretty good job. I thought the Canadian power play was a little punchless on the five-on-three, but I thought they were better in that third-period sequence, that late third-period sequence after the Bennett and then Jack Hughes. I mean, the way that overtime, or sorry, the way that third period staggered in terms of the original double minor, and then, you know, the Jack Hughes, like, you know, Jack Hughes, too, gets a shot in the bumper on that 5-on-4 with like 201 left. And I was thinking, man.

I think it was Gensel, but, yeah. Was it Gensel? And I was just thinking as he took that shot, like, that's such a high leverage moment in this game. Because if he scores there and you stay on the power play, you know, team Canada is basically down to 90 seconds to make it interesting again. Like, that was a, I thought Team USA special teams were pretty good, even though the power play ultimately didn't score for them. and they took that Jack Hughes penalty to level it out and give Canada a pretty significant power play opportunity of their own. You know, I thought obviously the penalty kill killed it. Right.

Like their penalty kill was huge, a huge factor. One of the many missed opportunities that Canadians are going to be seeing in their nightmares for the next three years, our four years, came on, came as a result of some of the work that, yeah, the Team USA's much maligned penalty killers were able to do. Yes, yeah, but they come out of the tournament not giving up a single Unbelievable. ...against on the PK. Yeah. So I thought that was going to be a trouble spot for them. Yeah.

Like I really did coming into the tournament. I wasn't sure how they'd fare, but they were dominant there. All right, let's take our break here. And then when we come back, we're going to close out this postgame show by going through the rest of our takes from the gold medal game and then closing the loop on the Olympics as a whole. You're listening to the Hockey Ocast Streaming on the Sports Night Radio Network. All right.

We're back here on the Hockey PEDEO guest recording here on a Sunday morning right after the conclusion of the goal medal game between Team Canada and Team USA. The overtime. I want to break down the ultimate goal and goal because I think you could go all the way back to the start of the sequence where I thought Jack Hughes did a phenomenal job. Providing as much resistance as you could expect any skater, but especially any forward to kind of knock McDavid off his path on one of those vintage rushes to the net that we've seen him. execute so many times over the years. And like he disrupted him enough knocking him off his path that it allowed Werencki to come back in his support and just have enough traffic there to not even really force Hellabuck to make a save on that.

And then Jack Hughes knocks it past the stick of Kail McCar at the blue line. It results in this three on one essentially going back the other way. Werenski, who only played 12 minutes in this game, but I thought had a couple very good offensive zone sequences in particular. and they just didn't really use him. They were leaning quite heavily on Hughes, McAvoy, and Faber Slavin, beats Nathan McKin into the puck and sends it over to Hughes and Hughes from the left dot makes no mistake.

And I thought that was very fitting that I really thought in watching this tournament, Jack Hughes, despite the fact that he was playing 11 to 13 minutes every night and what started off as a fourth line or worked his way onto that third line with Larkin and Thompson, was their most dangerous player. He certainly was today. And on a permanent basis, on a permanent basis, the most efficient. player in this tournament probably. Yep. And winds up finishing it with the goal. And so I thought it was the perfect capper for what was an impressive tournament for him. Yeah. Um, especially since,

you know, the devils as a whole, we need to get into it. But it's such a mess of a season. He just missed a ton of time. He was out. And with like bizarre injuries. And then, you know, the, the fact that they weren't able to acquire Quinn became a big story and, and on and on. I mean, he's had a fair bit of criticism around him, a fair bit of, you know, interesting. for him across the course, over the course of the season, and then has a rock star moment that it's going to be remembered in, you know, the annals of American hockey for as long as any of us live. Very cool for him.

The McKinnon of it all, I think, is worth noting because I thought it was a really tough three-on-three sequence for him. And he's a player, you know, as we think about, like, what this Olympics is going to mean for the NHL season, you know, today, just today, McCar was unbelievable. But we know that Miko Ranton, oh, right, he's not an half-flesh player anymore, excuse me. But we know that Nelson was wearing the bubble. Yes. And I think we think McKinnon was hurt, right?

Yes, certainly. Because. Especially like at 5-on-5, he just, and part of it was other than when he was playing with Celebrity and McDavid, they were never really able to find the right combination for him. Yeah. But, you know, as a shooter, notwithstanding the huge goal against Finland. In the final minute of Finland to get them to this point, but it was pretty inefficient as a shooter.

I thought some forced shots. thoughts along the way. And, you know, God is fair, sure, looks, I thought was still very dangerous offensively, but certainly not to the standard that the second or third best player in the world typically is. It's not even to the standard that he was at,

I think, in the first two games of this tournament versus as it went along, right? I think there's, I mean, even losing that sort of race to Austin Matthews, this isn't criticism. This is pointing out that it's not characteristic of what we expect from one of the most assertive predatory attacking plays.

players, you know, the last decade in the NHL. And I thought that three-on-three overtime really encapsulated it because you had the, you know, it's him on the back check that sets up that first Quinn Hughes chance that Bennington, you know, robs in the three-on-three overtime and sort of going the other way now, you had some tired American defenders and two players changing behind McKinnon and he sort of forces his way. And it's a good opportunity. Yeah.

But I don't know that it's as good an opportunity as. Not the most dangerous one possible. Yeah, not as good an opportunity I don't think is turning back and not allowing Hellebuck to freeze it and going to work against some more tired American defenders, which I think would have been more advantageous in that moment. So I think you combine those three sequences at three-on-three overtime, and it was just like a tough bit at the end of a tournament in which I suspect he was lagging it out. And I'm really curious to see what the implications are for Colorado. And, you know, generally like the Western mix, because that's where the Rattanan injury comes in, right? I think McKinnon's probably, there's probably going to be some sort of disclosure once he gets back to avalanche practice.

And, you know, those are two pretty significant things that could impact the pecking order in the Western Conference, especially in a central division that we're looking at as being, you know, a very probable place for, you know, like a Stanley Cup final. analysts to emerge from. Yeah, the two counterpoints are one because of their start to the year. I know that they don't have as big of a lead as they had previously, but I think ultimately, like, they have they can afford to, relatively quite a bit of margin or bear down the stretch. And the other is, you know, I thought NACIS was so good in this tournament. Yes, he was. And was doing a lot of the heavy lifting on his own, in particular, not playing with Pasternak. So like a lot of the stuff about, like, oh, well, he needs to be successful. He plays when the kid in, he hasn't really shown up as a top line

player in the playoffs in the past. I thought he was phenomenal in this. And, you know, Gabe Landisog had missed so much time heading into this tournament after his injury in Florida. And he probably shouldn't have been playing in three-on-three in their semi, in their quarterfinal matchup against the U.S., but I thought he looked quite good playing on that Lucas Raymond because it's been a jad line. And so those guys looking healthy and looking very productive.

Yep. Is a nice, like, balance to that. And, you know, Nelson's wearing the bubble, but was still. very effective in his role for Team USA in this tournament and certainly did not look out of place at all after some of the questions we had in four nations on this type of stage. And so I don't think it's necessarily all doom and gloom, but certainly like you need McKinnon to be fully operational and firing on all cylinders. Yeah. I mean, I don't really have any more notes on the U.S. here. I don't know if we spent enough time on it, although we did mention it. Like I just thought

Jackie's was so good at this tournament. And I've been doing all these. game breakdowns along the way and every time I'd put together the chart of scoring chance contributions with Team USA and it'd be like Jack he uses first second or third on the team and then you look and he played 11 minutes he played 13 minutes in this one and had a couple opportunities and then drew

the four minute minor scores the goal at the end and so a very, very nice showing for him all right here's what we're going to do we have about 15 minutes left and I want to make the most of it because I mean how often do we get this type of situation where we've got the Olympics best on best a goal medal game

of this caliber and so to close out today's show we're going to bring in a special guest a special caller first-time caller but hopefully not last time because i've been looking forward to getting him on for a while now we're going to bring in chris pronger to join us and the three of us are going to break down some of the the other stuff that we left on the meat and the bone regarding not only this gold medal game between Canada and the US but also just the Olympics as a whole so let's get to it all right fitting of the of the stage uh Olympic gold medal game we had to bring in a big gun to help Thomas and I out. The listeners are sick of hearing just the two of us break this stuff down. And so we got Chris Bronger to join us. Chris, what's going on in?

Not much. Just here at the airport. So might be a little loud, not quite as loud as the Milan arena at this particular moment. But America's going crazy right now. The outcome here, Chris, when I think about what I would have expected out of this game and how it actually went down. It's a little stunning to me that Canada was able to be so assertive, so on top of the U.S., especially in the latter 40 minutes of that game where they really took it over and by a pretty good margin, that both surprised me and makes the fact that Canada didn't win gold today that much harder for me to swallow.

Yeah, to frankly dominate the game as badly as they did. You know, without shooting them 40, I don't know, what it was it? 43 to 22 or whatever it was through in regulation. I don't think anybody had that on their bingo card. No. And then to see, you know, Taves backdoor tap in, Hella Buck, you know, with a hashic like save, sprawling back with a stick. And then McKinnon missing an empty net.

You know, we're looking at 3-1 right now. And, you know, again, these types of games are a what could have been, you know type of moments and you know at the end of the day the u.s found a way to to pull it back and and uh seal the deal and uh you know that's what these moments are all about and and now we'll see we'll see what this does for jack he's career and kind of where how people look at him and and where he goes from here because that's uh when you score that type of goal in these moments you know that can be a uh career changer Yeah, well, there's a couple American players who I think have had question marks, right?

Connor Hellebuck and Jack Hughes and now come out of this as, you know, certified American heroes and clutch performers. Yeah. You know, the line between McKinnon, you know, having the game winner, for example, in this game and not, right? And or Jack Hughes, you know, I don't think there was a moment where he would have been blamed for the loss, but for the most part, he was a third liner in this tournament. And now this, it's so fine. How do players handle that in your experience, Chris? And for guys like Hellebuck and Jack Hughes, what's sort of the key to making sure that, you know, this is something that meaningfully, like, it'll change how they're talked about.

But, you know, how does this meaningfully change who they are as players, the sort of aura that they have in these polls? Yeah, and how they can use that as a springboard to further advantage. their careers and play at a higher level. And it certainly gives you the confidence. You know, now Hellebuck can lean back on, okay, I've been able to do it on the biggest stage. Yeah. In the biggest moment, you know, one game, you know,

the trick is it's one game, do or die. You know, so we could call it a game seven. You know, and I don't know if he's being looked at as a, he's not a game seven type player. I don't know if he's really gotten to many of those outside of winning the one in St. Louis last year, you know, but I don't know if you wanted or St. Louis lost it in how that one played out.

But this certainly is going to give him a lot of confidence. It's going to give Jack Hughes a lot of confidence. There's a lot of question marks on Jack Hughes leading into these Olympics. And I think some of the question marks then also go on to Canada for some of their players. One that I don't think, and I've read a few comments of people talking about Kail McCart. in a negative light. I'm not exactly sure why.

I thought he was the best player on the ice today. I thought he was head and shoulders above Quinn Hughes today. He dominated every step and the fact that, okay, he kind of whiffed at the first puck. And then it was Taves, supposed to be Taves Puck in that scenario. When Boldie flips it past them, they were kind of, I think they both maybe thought the other one was going to take Boldie and get the puck and what have you. You know, those things happen. And then, you know, on that last goal, we can pick apart.

Somebody was saying, oh, he didn't back check hard enough or whatever. I mean, we're going to be able to pick apart any player. I don't care who you are. You're going to make mistakes. Things are going to happen. But I thought he was phenomenal today. And, you know, it's, you know, and I think that the nice part or the interesting part for me for Canada is that, I mean, people question Jordan Binnington, people question Connor Hallibuck.

I don't think the goaltending played a negative part in the game. If anything, you played a positive play. The same Bittington made on Quinn Hughes and the one-timer early in overtime was spectacular. He played really well, although he wasn't as tested as Hallibuck was. So in that regard, I think that part of the storyline I think was much better or more positive. And really it's about the opportunities missed by Canada and the save, the huge saves by Hellebuck. I don't necessarily think the U.S. played that great of a game. But they won.

And at the end of the day, they don't write stories. There's going to be stories about it, but nobody's going to care in 10 or 20 years that they didn't play their best game. They won. And that's all the matters in these scenarios is either win or you or you lose. Somebody's got to win, somebody's got to lose. And at this stage, and on this particular moment, they found a way to win the biggest game of their careers. Yeah, Chris, you know, typically in these sorts of high leverage games, whether it's game seven of a Stanley Cup final or a gold medal game like this,

we associate it with these like kind of rock fight games in terms of the scoreboard perspective at least, where it's 2-1, 3-2 at the very most. You're not going to get a back-and-forth track meet shootout. And so acknowledging all that, I remember we had you all. on Thomas's show, Canucks Talk, right when these rosters were announced, we were talking about this a little bit in terms of the composition of the blue line for Team Canada in particular. And it's tough to quibble with the volume and even the quality of looks Canada generated

in this one. You mentioned the shot total. I had them with 45 scoring chances throughout this one. And so they certainly generated enough offense theoretically from a process perspective to come out victorious here. Yet one nitpick I've had along the way is especially deeper down the depth chart on the blue line, I feel like moments like these kind of shine an even greater emphasis on their decision to not bring some of the more highly skilled options, whether it was a Matthew Schaefer or even

an Evan Bouchard, Jacob Chickren, guys who could turn some of these sort of dump and chase retrieval, go D to D, you got the defender moving downhill for a rister the way Kel McCar scored on his goal. You're going to get those looks. I'd love it to be one of those guys who's going to be more likely to convert that into a goal and be a bit more dangerous. I know you're trying to build out this team with different. skill sets and not having an overlap of those guys. But I feel like this was the exact type of game. And you could certainly say the same thing for the U.S.

with some of their four fine decisions and not having a Roberts or a Caulfield that could have scored an extra goal for them. But I feel like this really highlights maybe the one sort of blind spot they had in putting together this roster. Yeah. And you can also look at, you know, there's that point. And I also think, I against the Connor Hellebuck, when you figure out at this stage and how he's played up to this point in the tournament.

They have to get somebody in front of the net. They've got to get in his face. They've got to get in his eyes. And I didn't, you know, they created a lot of offense and opportunities. They didn't have a lot of traffic. And to me, when a goalie is that dialed in and playing that well, it's going to be a greasy goal. It's going to be ugly.

There's going to be a massive breakdown. And, you know, we can pick apart the defense and the lack of, you know, the lack of of who thought Josh Morrissey was going to play a period in this tournament. Like, you know, you're laying your hat on him being a big piece of that offensive puzzle. You know, he played a period. If that, again, you know, he got hurt, you know,

he got sick and hurt in the foreign nations. You know, so that certainly didn't help the cause as far as offensive weapons on the back end. You know, I think they, I would imagine they were thinking they'd have an, an offensive fuck mover with a steady eddy sound defensive defenseman they'd have the kind of ying and the yang and uh and you know once you start you know kind of theater got hurt in the four nations Morrissey got sick you start having these guys go down and now to your point amitri you're relying on

the meat and potatoes guys and the guys that are not necessarily brought in to do those roles now that that that role's thrust upon them and it's not as comfortable for them as it is for those other guys. And so, you know, from that perspective, you know, did they overthink that? Did they, I don't know, like, those guys actually played really well today. They moved the puck really well. So we can sit here and try to poke holes and everything they did. They should have won, but they didn't.

And we could argue, sit here and argue that it wasn't because of that particular scenario. Maybe if you have those other guys, those chances or those. opportunities and look a little bit different, you know, how that really looks. But now you're really, you're really stretching it and you're really kind of digging for something to complain about. With sort of what this means for the game generally, like, were there any things you saw in this game especially, but over the course of this tournament that reflect where the game's gone over the last few years versus sort of, you know, like the way that Canada generated looks,

the shot selection stuff. Was there anything that you take as sort of a trend that's been in the NHL that you noticed in this tournament or in this game in particular? Well, first and foremost, on TV, I don't think people realize how fast that game was being played. Yeah. The decision making, the ability to process information in front of you, when things are going, this a thousand miles an hour and you're able to slow it down enough to be able to be deliberate

and where you're moving the puck and how you're processing the information. I don't think people realize how difficult that can be and especially if you're a goaltender and the reason why I say you want to get in their eyes as you're crossing in front and the goal he's trying to track the puck and things are going like this. It is incredibly difficult and the puck is going side to side, you know, scene passes and things of that nature. I, I, I, do think over the last, I mean, this tournament especially, I do think Canada got a little too cute. They kept trying to make one extra pass, one too many pass. Drive the net.

There wasn't a lot of meat and potatoes like today. Taves goes to the front of the net. It's on his stick. It's a tap bit. I didn't see the drive the backpost and drive the net and create a little indecision. and Connor Hellebuck had coming out or going down with that guy going off the back door.

I didn't really steal a lot of that. They didn't have a ton of rush chances, so it's hard to pick that part out. But on the grind game and the cycle game, taking it to the net and just jamming it. And I know we're worried about goalie interference and all that stuff, but whatever. You've got to take it to the front of the net.

Like, there's going to, today's game for Canada, it should be a greasy goal. It should be something in and around the blue paint, banging in a loose rebound, whatever, fighting through the opposition and fighting through a check somewhere to bang home a rebound or bang home a loose puck. To me, that would be a Canadian-style win.

It's not always going to be a golden goal like Cindy Crosby. It's going to be that type of meat and potatoes that we all know and love. All right, this is the last thing I got for you, Chris, and then we're going to let you go because you've been very generous with your time already. I'm going to try to, as I'm sure we all are covering this game, we're going to have to quickly turn around and reframe everything,

looking ahead to the NHL, and we've got the trade deadline coming up, and then obviously the push for the playoffs and the postseason itself. I know you talked about this a little bit earlier with Jack Hughes. I'm very curious coming out of this one to see who benefits the most from it from this experience and this opportunity they had, and especially for the winning side. Team USA, I remember last year during the Four Nations,

we talked a lot about how guys like Brady Kachuk and Jake Sanderson really benefited from playing the roles they did on that team and then helped push Ottawa back into the playoffs. I certainly think of someone like Dylan Larkin, who was phenomenal throughout this tournament and made a lot of big plays for them. And then, you know, what him and Lucas Raymond and Mo Sider did at this tournament and Detroit sitting at a playoff spot trying to end that decade-long playoff drought.

I'd even add a Zach Werensky who, you know, has had a taste of playoff experience, but it came the last time during the start of COVID in the bubble. And so that seems like another lifetime ago now. And he's been playing as a top two, three defensemen in the world. And he makes that play in overtime to help Team USA win this. Tage Thompson for Buffalo, who didn't score in this game, but had a bunch of really good looks for them, especially in the second period and scored a big goal in the semifinal.

Is there anyone else you're thinking of or just those guys in general, like kind of using this to benefit. at both themselves individually but also their NHL clubs as they try to do something they haven't done in a while now? Yeah, I think you look at both sides of the spectrum. I think if you look at the U.S., you know, we talked about it earlier

using it as a springboard and it's an opportunity to learn and understand what it's going to take to get to that next level, not only in your game, but help your team game, help your NHL club, get to the promised land, get an opportunity at the playoffs and a Stanley Cup and to your point

Detroit, I think, getting those players, this experience is going to be huge. None of them have played in the playoffs. So they don't know what it's like. And certainly this experience is going to bode well for Detroit, I think, and especially how those players played. I thought Dylan Larkin was excellent. Most Sider was as well.

And Lucas Raymond, I thought, was Sweden's best player. So on the heels of that, I think if you're Detroit, you're excited about what things are really looking. like for your prospects, not only for the playoffs, but in the ensuing years, as those guys bring that experience back to their teammates and to the team.

And, you know, all those, like you're talking about Tage Thompson, Jack, he's, all these guys that have been a part of now a winner on the biggest stage. You know, if there's one thing that teams want, they want players that have won championships. They want players that have won on the biggest stage and the

biggest games. And now, you know, USA's chalk fullerble. and if there was one glaring hole in the armor, it was that they'd always come up a little bit short. And now they've found a way. You know, and that, it's not always about how you play. It's about how you play in the biggest moment. You know, finding a way to win.

You don't play perfect all the time, but you can win. And it's knowing how that's going to play out and not succumbing to the pressure and the moment. You know, they look very much, they look very comfortable in light of the pressure coming at them and the oncoming attack of Canada, they looked, they didn't look like they were panicked on the bench. They didn't look like they were overcome with panic as things were looking bleak. They looked like they were bending but not breaking. And I think that will only, A, help this rivalry. Now it is a rivalry and now, you know, the other side has.

was one. And now, you know, I think people are looking forward to the World Cup in two years and the Olympics in four years. And that's only going to add more fuel to the fire and, you know, we'll see how that dynamic plays out. But there's still a few more countries that are going to have a say in how this all plays out. But, you know, if you're just looking at the bigger picture and the game of hockey and what it's going to do to spur growth and whatnot, you know, these two teams left it all out there and, and poor, the product in a very, very highlight. Awesome, Chris.

Well, this was awesome. We're going to let you go here. Anything you want to plug on the way out? I know you've been doubling as a media member doing columns at the athletics. I'll let you let the listeners know. Yeah, I'm going to have a, yeah, we'll have a column out in the athletic, probably tomorrow about this gold medal game and kind of the Olympics experience, et cetera. And my book, I got a book coming out, April 14th, earned.

You can either go to my website, Chris Bronger.com, or earned the book.com, which ultimately brings you back to my website. So how about you just go to my website? Seems easy enough. Or guess what? You can go to a bookstore, Barnes &noble.com, Amazon.com. You can go to all of them and get the book earned.

It releases April 14th. All right, buddy. Well, this was awesome. Thank you for hopping on. We're going to let you go. Thomas and I are going to close out this show on the back end. So hopefully we'll have you on again too. Thanks, buddy.

Sounds good. All right, boys. See you. Man. Well, if anyone at this point is questioning our fastball. Yeah. I feel like just out of the blue. And listen, we didn't even plan it necessarily.

Like we started talking, you're like, hey, Chris Bronger's going to hop on. I'm like, well, who am I to say no? And so we had him join us and provide a little insight on today's gold medal game in the Olympics as a whole. I think a great way to put a finishing touch on these Olympics. And, you know, how many of these post games did we do now, like at least four or five throughout this event? What a blast. How lucky are we?

And we got so much fun stuff ahead too. I think we teased it at the end of last show, but we've already recorded our next show earlier this week, and that'll be dropping on Monday as well, and so a lot to look forward to there. And then we're going to quickly transition. We've got, I think our next Sunday special next weekend is going to be our annual fake trades with Jack Fraser,

and so that's going to be incredibly fun. And then as soon as we get to the playoffs, which are going to come just around the corner, we're going to be back to doing these post-game shows. And so who's got it better than us? Truly, no one. What do you want to promote on the way out? Oh, nobody.

But the, I mean, look, I'm incredibly disappointed today. This is a hard one. You are such a homer. Sorry? You are such a homer for only one team and it's the Canadian men's national team. But man, this is a tough one to swallow, especially because they were the better team by such a massive margin and it just didn't matter. That's rough. It's a rough day, but I feel blessed to have got to cover what's been a really sensational tournament.

I mean, some of the most memorable games we've seen in a long, long time. You think about the round robin, you know, some of the play that we saw, even from teams like Switzerland, who I thought were exceptional in this tournament. Slovakia's power play. You know, I think about Finland, who I really think could have won a gold medal. Like, I think Finland was a legitimate gold medal threat. I think they demonstrated that against Canada. I think they could have demonstrated that against the United States.

and then, you know, the collision course that it felt like the U.S. and Canada were on throughout this tournament for it to deliver such drama, such anxiety, such a high level of hockey. I mean, that was such a pure distillation of everything we love about this game, except for the outcome. But you know what? The value of a game, the value of our enjoyment as sports fans, and certainly the value of hockey from the perspective of, like, the biggest hockey nerds who just love watching this game. I mean, that was a treat. That was such a phenomenal experience just to watch it as someone deeply invested emotionally in the outcome, but also just to someone who loves watching hockey.

So I really had a blast this entire tournament, and I especially had a blast getting to chat about these games with you and share our opinions with the audience. So thanks to everybody who listened, and thanks to you, my good friend, for counting, scoring chances with the level of dedication you showed, and for having me on this free to discuss, you know, honestly, a tournament that I think was one of the coolest hockey things we've seen in 10 years. Yeah, what a great promotion for the product in the sport, right? If you were just a casual fan tuning in because it was a gold medal game and it was early in the morning, you're having your coffee and your breakfast, I feel like you're going to be tuning in for more hockey moving forward

because it was the stakes, the drama, the level of play was all through the roof. All right, buddy, everyone can check out your work at the athletic, listen to you on Canucks talk as you're going to transition into talking about the rest of the Vancouver Canucks regular season. which I feel like is going to have lower stakes than this, but always enjoy listening to talk about this stuff, and we'll, as I said, have you plenty on the show moving forward. Give us a five-star review wherever you listen, and we'll be back in a couple days with plenty more of the PDOCAST.

So thank you for listening to us on the Sports Night Radio Network.