I'm a Canadian fan (disclaimer) but I have decided to take a stab at team USA for 2014. I will provide explanations for the lines below. I am interested in taking a look at teams other than Canada and USA is a good place to start as it is the team I would rather win should Canada lose, given certain criteria. This is what I would want to see if I was an American fan:
Parise Pavelski Kane
Brown Stastny Kessel
Ryan Kesler Backes
Pacioretty Stepan Callahan
Wheeler
Suter Martin
McDonagh Shattenkirk
Fowler E. Johnson
J. Johnson
Quick
Miller
Anderson
Line 1: USA's strength is at the wing, and the first line demonstrates that very clearly. Kane is an elite playmaker and should excel in international hockey. Whatever line he is on becomes the default first. Likewise, Parise is an elite LW, and fortunately his game should complement Kane well as he foreckecks furiously, dominates corners and finishes what Kane generates. Pavelski is not a conventional #1 centre choice, but this is USA's weakness so creativity is needed. Pavelski is a great glue player who can play any number of roles. He is competent defensively, which helps with Kane being required to play a completely defensive role, and like Parise is more than adept in the corners and in front of the net. Overall it's quite a strong line with no weakness at all.
Line 2: This is a boom or bust line, but the potential is there. Kessel is one of the most dangerous USA forwards, and his elite skating and shot are weapons that the other team always has to consider. Stastny has largely been a disappointment, but playmaking is lacking severely for USA and he is certainly a playmaker. Kessel was great with Marc Savard in Boston, and I see Stastny as a similar player. I am thinking that they could find some decent chemistry if givent he chance. His high hockey sense would be needed with this set of wingers. Brown is a strange choice for a second line, but I think he is the right player for the role. He complements Stastny and Kessel by being the defensive factor on the line and also the physical component. I'm not a big fan of Brown, but he could excel in such a simplified role, especially with the speed he brings. This line has a bit of everything once again.
Line 3: Kesler is an elite defensive centre when healthy, and an obvious choice for the third line centre spot. Backes is another great defensive player, has very good size and is a decent skater. His ability to play wing or centre is also valuable. Ryan brings additional physicality, and a boost to offensive ability. This line should be quite strong defensively, and in the offensive zone they should give teams fits if they can cycle down low. We know Ryan works in this role, and I suspect Kesler and Backes could pull off an imitation of Anaheim's top line.
Line 4: I don't understand why Stepan isn't the default choice here. Great skater, and already a very good centre who should be better by February 2014. Pacioretty is dominant when on his game, and he could realistically replace any LW ahead of him outside of Parise. Callahan is an elite defensive winger, should be invaluable on the PK and will ensure that this line is at the very least capable defensively. Though they don't play together regularly, Callahan and Stepan should have some familiarity from New York.
Overall: This group is very balanced. I tried to hide USA's weaknesses (centre, playmaking) while highlighting the strengths (goal scoring wingers, two way forwards) and I think each line would be a threat. The PP would probably focus on Kane and the defence, with no shortage of net presence. PK forwards include Kesler, Callahan, Brown, Backes or a few others as there are lots of options here. Wheeler is the 13th forward mainly because he's a player who can play almost any role.
Defence pair 1: Suter is one of the best defencemen in the world, so he is the easy pick on the first pairing. Martin is a strange pick, but I wanted to avoid one dimensional defenders and he is a pretty versatile player having quite a good season so far. He doesn't shoot right, but he's a quality skater, puck mover and positional defender. I think he complements Suter well enough and doesn't have a glaring weakness.
Defence pair 2: McDonagh is great defensively, while also being quite adept at moving the puck up the ice. Shattenkirk is elite offensively, but is not a defensive liability. I also like the players who came up in the NTDP when it comes to international hockey. A pretty well balanced pair, with both players being placed on their proper side.
Defence pair 3: Fowler, to me, is one of the most underrated defencemen in hockey. He looks very good for Anaheim, and his game is perfect for international hockey. E. Johnson is prone to bone headed decisions, but he has made some big strides in the last few years and can be a physical beast. If put in a situation where he only has to focus on making simple plays and defending, he could be extremely effective.
Overall: Looking for balance here. I didn't want Yandle of Byfuglien because I suspect they would be big liabilities on international ice. Orpik brings nothing in terms of offence, or even simple puck movement, and he's far too slow for this level at this point in his career. This group is very strong in terms of puck movement, speed, and each pair has good size. Once again no obvious weakness, and a few consistent strengths. Jack Johnson has enough international experience, and enthusiasm, that he has to make the team. He is a pretty good skater and has a hard shot that can be a PP weapon.
Goaltenders: Really, it depends who is hot. Quick was tremendous last year, but he seems slightly off this year. He has shown enough to be selected though. Miller hasn't touched his 2010 form lately, but he is still a very good goaltender. If Quick picks up his game to the form he displayed last year he gets the starting job, otherwise Miller gets it based on his play in 2010. I picked Anderson for third based only on his hot streak this year. Realistically there are a few contenders for this spot, and it could depend on who looks good weeks before the Olympics.
Coaching: No idea here really. If forced, I would lean toward Laviolette. He just seems like a coach that could get players to buy in for a short period, playing a simple but effective system based on pressure and defensive responsibility. I think Bylsma is a pretty weak coach, and Tortorella's personality and coaching style seems like a poor fit for international hockey.
Anyway, this is my team. Easily a gold medal contender, USA comes with obvious strengths/weaknesses. If they play an effective system, USA should be a team that frustrates opponents by stymieing their attacks through team speed, then sustaining possession in the offensive zone and activating the defence to keep the opposition off balance. Should be a uniquely composed team. Thanks for reading my novel on the subject.