WJC: 2023 Team USA Roster Talk

[NewHampshire]

LOL - Canada spent the whole first half of the tournament complaining about how they always struggle with goaltending in these tournaments and they've clearly fallen behind the US in positional development. Sixty head-to-head minutes later and now it is the US, who simply can't keep up in overall goalie development. It's always a tournament of over reaction, but wow...

The age group was disappointing for the last eight months of tournaments - specifically during their 18-19 year old windows of development - THAT is all we know.

Connor Hellebuck played his 17/18 season at Walled Lake Northern High School and his 18/19 year of development with the Odessa Jackalopes - he's developed alright since, no? There is no valid or legitimate reason to make overarching judgements on the state of USA goaltending because of where this individual birth year currently finds itself on the development spectrum...

--

If he didn't opt out in the summer, the US would have rolled out Drew Commesso for the second time, and in between Spencer Knight and three years of Trey Augustine. Not bad. Additionally, it has only been these two tournaments crammed into a single year where the goalkeeping depth has been a huge concern. Things will probably be ok...

 

[William H Bonney]

The 6-2 score line was not indicative of the game, but my God this is so disingenuous. Anything but giving credit to Canada, who basically everyone agreed was the favourite going in to the tournament…

Pointing to the refs is ludicrous. Most including myself disagree with the first disallowed goal on principle, but that is textbook goalie interference by the international standards. It wasn’t a coin flip. That would be called that way every single time. Milic was pushing across and his pad clearly would have been there to stop the puck if the USA player’s backside did not stop him short. As for the second disallowed goal, that should not even be mentioned. Nobody who knows hockey would think that was a legit goal for even a split second. The only suspect behaviour of the refs was refusing to call anything on Team USA in the last 10 minutes, letting them get away with multiple holds and that obvious, textbook too many men call.

Pointing to the coaching is also weak. You had last change and for the majority of the game Hughes was clearly being matched against Bedard. The facts are simple. Canada’s depth was clearly stronger and the American stars were bad. Hughes is garbage defensively and really seems to lack the IQ of his brothers. Top-5 pick Gauthier was invisible and that top line, where Team USA concentrated all three of their playdriving forwards, got hemmed in repeatedly and exploited on the counterattack.

Goaltending turned decisively in Canada’s favour for the first time in ages. Is that not allowed? At the same time, we also hit more posts than you and it’s not like Augustine gave up any weak goals. Bedard backdoor tap-in, Stankoven backdoor tap-in, Fantilli backdoor tap-in, Roy fortunate bounce, Clarke perfect shot. The reality is that Team USA went with a d-corps of offensive defencemen that were always going to be brutal around their own net and got exploited badly by a strong forecheck and on the rush. I called it so before the tournament.

Want to talk turnovers? I’ve never seen as bad a stretch for a Canadian Junior team as the first 10 minutes. The giveaways were ludicrous and we couldn’t complete a pass. Even then, Team USA’s goals had a lot of luck to them. The Cooley goal was a completely broken play where the puck happened to land perfectly for him while the two defensemen covering him well could not find it. The Connors goal was a rebound that should have been kicked away into the corner. Neither were notable scoring chances.

In the end, the USA put up a ton of perimeter shots where the front of the net was kept clear by the Canadian defensemen. How many saves did Milic have to make while battling through a screen? How many rebounds? Canada surpassed the USA in slot shots and I am sure an equivalent measure of “quality scoring chances” would look identical - even after the horrific first 10 minutes. Team USA’s weak defense was exploited in their own end and on the forecheck. Canada’s superior skill made better of their chances and yes, for once we had the superior goaltending performance.

You lost to a better team, the team that was the favourites going in to the tournament. The game was tough and did not reflect the scoreboard. I’ve never seen a Canadian Junior team get dominated like those first 10 minutes. But run that game back and Canada wins a strong majority of times. Next year is the real run for the US, with far more returnees than us.

Get over yourself. You realize you're in the Team USA thread, right?

Where did I say Canada was underserving of the victory? I said Canada was the favorite heading into the tournament, I said it throughout the tournament, and I said it multiple times before the semifinal. Just because the Americans likely feel they deserved a better outcome in the game doesn't mean the Canadians should feel they were undeserving of the victory, or that they wouldn't rightly have felt justified they lost a game they should have won had the game gone the other way.

Pointing to the coaching, a part of the team that decides the results, is weak? No, it's not, and you're in the f***ing Team USA thread where we're discussing Team USA and its performance, including the coaching decisions. I like how you then call out "facts" that Hughes was being matched against Bedard to counteract that I was talking about the actual fact that all 3 of Bedard's line's goals were against the Ufko/Peart pairing. The point was the coaching decisions were weak; they shouldn't have deviated from the primary matchup and doing so cost them. Different coaching decisions could have resulted in the same results. But there was no logic to rolling that pair out against the Bedard line when the US had the last change.

And nowhere did I say Canada didn't have its own share of issues in the game. Of course, they made a ton of their own mistakes that contributed to the game playing out as it did. But why in the hell do you think I would spend my time in the Team USA thread - let me repeat, in the Team USA thread - dissecting the Canadian team and its performance?

If you want to read about the Canadian team, go to the GDT or the Team Canada thread. Coming into the Team USA thread to bitch, moan, and complain about folks dissecting the USA performance without similarly going into detail about the Canadian team is a wildly entitled position to take. I'm not surprised, but good lord the entitlement.

In Bonney's defense, he's a terrific poster and what he wrote, he wrote immediately after a hard loss. And we've all been there - years ago, the Finns got a bunch of calls going their way at the World Championship (in the 3rd period) and I was none too pleased.

Having said that, D, I agree with you, Canada's win was well deserved / well earned.

Never said Canada's win wasn't earned or deserved. Keep up.

 

[ORRFForever]

Never said Canada's win wasn't earned or deserved. Keep up.

I was agreeing with D (that the win was well earned and deserved), not disagreeing with you, WB.

 

[Dominance]

Get over yourself. You realize you're in the Team USA thread, right?

Where did I say Canada was underserving of the victory? I said Canada was the favorite heading into the tournament, I said it throughout the tournament, and I said it multiple times before the semifinal. Just because the Americans likely feel they deserved a better outcome in the game doesn't mean the Canadians should feel they were undeserving of the victory, or that they wouldn't rightly have felt justified they lost a game they should have won had the game gone the other way.

Pointing to the coaching, a part of the team that decides the results, is weak? No, it's not, and you're in the f***ing Team USA thread where we're discussing Team USA and its performance, including the coaching decisions. I like how you then call out "facts" that Hughes was being matched against Bedard to counteract that I was talking about the actual fact that all 3 of Bedard's line's goals were against the Ufko/Peart pairing. The point was the coaching decisions were weak; they shouldn't have deviated from the primary matchup and doing so cost them. Different coaching decisions could have resulted in the same results. But there was no logic to rolling that pair out against the Bedard line when the US had the last change.

And nowhere did I say Canada didn't have its own share of issues in the game. Of course, they made a ton of their own mistakes that contributed to the game playing out as it did. But why in the hell do you think I would spend my time in the Team USA thread - let me repeat, in the Team USA thread - dissecting the Canadian team and its performance?

If you want to read about the Canadian team, go to the GDT or the Team Canada thread. Coming into the Team USA thread to bitch, moan, and complain about folks dissecting the USA performance without similarly going into detail about the Canadian team is a wildly entitled position to take. I'm not surprised, but good lord the entitlement.



Never said Canada's win wasn't earned or deserved. Keep up.

Gatekeeping a thread is just sad, especially when I was engaging in actual hockey discussion - the entire point of these boards.

Your exact words were “The scoreboard was not reflective of that game at all. Not that it's a consolation for the team but that was at worst an evenly played game for the team. But a game they likely feel they should have won,” before proceeding to proscribe a long list of failures by Team USA.

Emotions are high but the better team won. Acting as though it was just a matter of some bad luck for the Americans is pure coping.

 

[William H Bonney]

Gatekeeping a thread is just sad, especially when I was engaging in actual hockey discussion - the entire point of these boards.

Your exact words were “The scoreboard was not reflective of that game at all. Not that it's a consolation for the team but that was at worst an evenly played game for the team. But a game they likely feel they should have won,” before proceeding to proscribe a long list of failures by Team USA.

Emotions are high but the better team won. Acting as though it was just a matter of some bad luck for the Americans is pure coping.

I'm not gatekeeping a thread. You should feel welcome to contribute just like anyone else. But coming into a Team USA thread in a huff that I'm not talking about all the ways Canada also struggled or made mistakes is again peak entitlement. The thread is not intended for Team Canada discussion.

And I stand by those words. Pretty much every viewer agrees the score was not indicative of the game. And even if you don't agree it was evenly played or that the US carried more of the play, a game being evenly played does not equate to a rightful expectation that Team USA should have won, even if the team might feel like they should have. Hockey is more than that. Canada got better goaltending and Canada made the US pay for its mistakes more than the US did Canada. Canada has lost in similar circumstances when the goaltending and finishing went the other way.

I never said the USA was a better team or that they lost because of bad luck. They lost for a lot of reasons, many of them self-inflicted, and many others credit to Team Canada.

I'm all for having a discussion but you came into this thread pissing about USAH fans assessing their team, its coaches, and their performance while not simultaneously providing assessments of Team Canada or being eager to bow to Team Canada.

 

[Dominance]

I'm not gatekeeping a thread. You should feel welcome to contribute just like anyone else. But coming into a Team USA thread in a huff that I'm not talking about all the ways Canada also struggled or made mistakes is again peak entitlement. The thread is not intended for Team Canada discussion.

And I stand by those words. Pretty much every viewer agrees the score was not indicative of the game. And even if you don't agree it was evenly played or that the US carried more of the play, a game being evenly played does not equate to a rightful expectation that Team USA should have won, even if the team might feel like they should have. Hockey is more than that. Canada got better goaltending and Canada made the US pay for its mistakes more than the US did Canada. Canada has lost in similar circumstances when the goaltending and finishing went the other way.

I never said the USA was a better team or that they lost because of bad luck. They lost for a lot of reasons, many of them self-inflicted, and many others credit to Team Canada.

I'm all for having a discussion but you came into this thread pissing about USAH fans assessing their team, its coaches, and their performance while not simultaneously providing assessments of Team Canada or being eager to bow to Team Canada.

Fair enough. I’m a homer through and through. Congratulations (sincerely) on winning the bronze medal in that insane game today.

 

[William H Bonney]

The bronze medal game was an absolute shitshow for both teams. I know those games are hard to play, especially on such a quick turnaround, but I've seen more structured efforts in pickup games. One of those games where someone was going to win a medal but it's hard to say either team deserved a medal based on their performances today. I'm happy Team USA pulled it off but all of their worst traits throughout the tournament reared their ugly heads in this one.

On the positive side, it was nice to see Lucius show up. Of course, the hat trick and GWG were huge, but it was the first game all tournament where he consistently looked engaged. He was skating hard, hustling, battling, and making skillful attempts, things he rarely did before today. In a tournament where we needed some 19-year-olds to step up and it largely didn't happen, it was nice to see a 19-year-old finally step up to help the team at least end it with the bronze.

It wasn't Cooley's best performance today - he looked exhausted - but he still found a way to make an impact. That said, he was the team's best player throughout the tournament by a sizable margin and he could be dominant if he's back next tournament.

Brindley didn't provide any offense all tournament and I don't see the 1st round upside or skill level some others see, but I respect the hell out of the way he plays the game. Production wise he didn't deserve a bigger role but he sure deserved one based on his effort.

I'm no fan of Mbereko's game and while it's hard to say he had any real impact on the team winning the bronze after he came in the game, it was nice to see him end his USAH career on a high note. He seems like a pretty good kid.

It's a small sample size but Augustine is showing a worrisome habit of shrinking in pressure games. He did it at the U18s and he did it here, too. It's far too early to make any declarations, especially as an underager and double-underager in those respective tournaments, but it's something I'll be closely watching at this year's U18 tournament. While Mbereko didn't inspire any increased confidence, especially when he immediately let in a soft goal, pulling Augustine was the right decision, and one of the only times the coaching staff made any decisions all tournament in an effort to reel in the team and the disappearing momentum/lead.

It's clear the staff didn't choose wisely when building the defense. It was something we were all worried about and those fears ended up being justified. One on hand, the options for a different makeup weren't abundant - the '03 defensive pool is shallow and the most advanced '04 defensemen were all guys similar to the '03s who were going to make the team. That said, it was a mistake to take 7 very similar defensemen, compounded by not playing the one defenseman they took (Chesley) who could be the best defender while playing with the most chippiness. That's not to say Chesley would have played any better, or drastically changed anything, but to not even give him an extended look when a few guys playing regularly struggled so much was a bit shocking. In the end, it would have been prudent to evaluate and/or select more defenders with length, varied skill sets, or a willingness/ability to bring a different element than the others. Again, the options weren't endless but guys with length like Buium and Schmidt (who I don't even really like) or a meat-and-potatoes guy like Gallagher who would take a puck in the face to win would have positively changed the makeup, or at least the ability to mix things up.

The Peart - Ufko pairing might be one of the worst pairings I've seen for Team USA when it came to playing defense. Ufko put up a lot of points, which isn't too surprising as he's a very talented offensive defenseman (and he racked up 5 of those points against Germany). But he had a poor tournament, even if the team makeup did him no favors. I defended Peart after his debacles in last year's tournament as he's been a good NCAA player. But he was even worse this tournament - one of the worst performances by one of our defensemen in the WJC in a long time - and he was a drag on Ufko much like he was when he was with Hughes. Ufko turned the puck over a lot (sometimes it was just bad luck like the fan on Carlsson's goal today) but Peart was continually lost defensively, wandering out of position in the defensive zone, often to cover the wrong man who's already being closed in on, while leaving his position and player open to score. Peart should have been benched midway through the tournament; instead, he kept getting regular shifts and/or prime assignments and it kept leading to the puck going in against Team USA.

Beyond the performances of individual players or the defensive roster construction, the two things I think most plagued the team throughout the tournament were:

1. They were really poor on face-offs. Both winning them but also maintaining any structure, positioning, or assignments on defensive zone face-offs. So many of the best scoring chances (and goals) they gave up were right off of defensive zone face-offs. And today wasn't any different.

2. It was the worst Team USA I've seen in my 18+ years watching this tournament at maintaining any momentum, or not completely falling apart when the momentum shifted. There is always going to be a high likelihood for wild momentum swings and lead changes when dealing with junior players, but it was shocking how predictable this team was at it. Even when things were going well (i.e., dominating run of play or multiple goal leads), it felt inevitable that they'd give it right back, and quickly. How many leads did they blow today? And was anyone surprised that Sweden tied it up late? I think there were a lot of underlying reasons for this: we didn't have a quality 19-year-old core to help anchor the team, the defense was poorly constructed and shaky at best (if you're being generous), the bottom six forwards never brought consistent forechecking nightmares for the opposition as we've seen with previous rosters, and the staff never coached as if they had any influence over the momentum - they never shortened the bench, never changed the lines, never sat guys consistently hurting the team, never used their timeouts. It was as if they were resigned to helplessness as they watch stretches of games - and leads - rapidly get away from them.

Before the tournament I said:

"If they can get into the medal games that'd be a win and from there, anything can happen, but I don't think this is a gold medal game or bust team like has been the norm in recent tournaments."

Generally, I think that proved fairly accurate. On one hand, they'll stew over the semifinal result against Canada and what could have been, but on the other hand, the team was very uneven throughout the tournament with some glaring, recurring, and monumental issues they could never even slightly remedy, so even coming home with a medal still feels like a win.