Discussion in 'International Tournaments' started by Monkeypox, Jan 3, 2005.
Anyone see enough of the action to post one?
This edition of USA had big hopes for the tournament on home soil after last years gold, which i think was unfair, this team just did not have the overall depth that Russia, Canada and to a lesser extent the Czechs. throw in the poor play of Montoya and this was a very average team USA.
That all said they have some exciting players to watch for the coming years Suter, Kessel, and i really liked the play of Stafford during the round robin
I agree, US was thin especially on defense, where really they had nothing after Suter, and even Suter looked worn out last night.
I liked the play of Suter, Stafford, Kessel and O'Sullivan the most.
From the games I saw...
Goaltending - C
Montoya started off slow, but played his best two games when they counted most. Kept the US in it during a few crazy 3rd periods.
Defense - D
Absolutely atrocious. Aside from Suter only Borer looked like he belonged out there. Likens was terrible. Where was Jack Johnson, did we really need Lee so they could show the Brian Lee fan club on ESPN. Montoya had problems which were all EXTREMELY evident due to this group.
Forwards - B
They got the US as far as they did. Thet played very well offensively in most games. They had a few bad defensive games, but for the most part they were always the teams strength. I was particularly impressed with Kessel, Schremp, Stafford, and O'Sullivan.
I wasn't impressed with Schremp at all, IM Overy disappointing.
The US players that stood out positively IMO: O'Sullivan, Fritsche, Stafford, and Kessel. At times Kessel tried too much of the one-on-one game, when he'd have been better off using his speed beating guys wide, or playing the give & go game with a teammate.
The players that I thought played well were Kessel, Fritsche, Porter, Brown, Dowell, Schremp (when he got minutes) Suter, and Hagemo (not so much against Sweden) and Borer wasn't too bad either.
We must have watched different games then, because the guy I saw skating around in a Schremp jersey played pretty good & managed decent offensive stats with limited ice-time.
Overall Stafford impressed me the most. This is someone who coming into the draft was said to be a physical forward with "questionable" offensive upside. I saw nothing wrong with his offensive instinct.
This is the first times I've been able to watch Schremp, and my first impression, was, poor skater.
I was thinking more along the lines of projecting him to the NHL, as opposed to how he performed in this tournament.
I agree, I think he is a very poor skater. I now understand why (last year at least) he got a hugely disproportionate amount of his points on the power play in London.
How does 4 goals and at least 5 amazing setups in VERY limited icetime not impress someone. Get real.
Agreed. His skating is definetaly not a current strength of his. Though if we were to project that onto a possible NHL outlook, there are plenty of small(ish) NHL centers who dont possess a good stride or skating technique, yet found their niche in the league anyway. (Someone correct me if Im wrong, but I seem to recall that coming out of Lake Superior, Doug Weight, a possible future comparable, was not the strongest of skaters either.)
Again, I was talking about prjecting him to be an NHLer, and IMO I thought his skating looked poor, and IMO will make it difficult for his game to translate to the next level. Seems to make his #32 ranking on HF seem quite a bit inflated IMO.
He impressed me in the tournament. He made some nice moves that really impressed me. The quick release and shot was nice. I think he should have gotten more ice time. With that said I'm talking about his performance in the WJC NOT how he will translate to the NHL.
Personally, I felt Schremp was a liability in every zone but the offensive one.
Rare for smallish centers, that aren't great skaters to make a big impact in the NHL.
Weight, especially before the knee injuries was a much better skater than Schremp (at least what I saw in 4 games).
I thought his defense was solid...
Savard comes to mind... he's a shifty player who's great with the puck, but I never considered him quick by any means.
I thought the forwards looked pretty skilled and speedy. The D didn't look very good to be honest, and the coaching was really, really ******, they didn't seem to have any systems or plays, and no puck support.
I'll wait until after the bronze medal game to post my complete thoughts, but based on play to this point I was most impressed by: Stafford, Fritsche, Suter, Kessel, Callahan, and Porter, and most disappointed by Likens, Pineault, and Montoya. As for Schremp, I think he showed alot of skill and character, especially after riding the pine early on. He earned his expanded role, and played very well. I can't say whether his skating (as is) will hinder him at the next level or beyond, but I can see him putting up alot of points on the PP wherever he goes, and that's a trait I know Edmonton could use on their team.
I questioned the coaching as well, but wonder if personnel dictated many of their decisions? I know on defense they didn't really have alot to work with, which points to the braintrust who built this team. This team could have used at least two more stay-at-home d-men with size, giving Likens and Hunwick the gate, and Brian Lee should have never been named. I thought the forwards were fine, although a guy like Tom Fritsche might have been a better choice than Chris Bourque. Goaltending looked great going in, although maybe a guy like Gerald Coleman would have been a better back-up to Montoya than Schneider? Hind-sight's 20/20.
All I have to say , is that I won't never understand why they take Lee instead of Jack Johnson.
I didn't think his defence was any worse than a lot of other forwards. O'Sullivan for one, who prides himself on his defensive play, didn't look like he did a whole lot in his own end.
It's wasn't. He's not great defensively, but I don't think he was a liability, merely average. I think alot of people are just riding the bandwagon on this topic.
:lol Savard is 1000 times better player than Shremp.
Well, since you think so it must be true!