therealdeal
Registered User
- Apr 22, 2005
- 4,619
- 243
- Status
therealdeal said:
Do you not think DiPietro is very talented? I think to be doing as well as he is at his age he shows alot of talent and potential. Miller is good but isnt he 3 years older(or maybe closer to 2, not sure the exact birthday) then DiPietro. If Miller had not been injured he probably would have been on the Oly team this year, but the coaches make it pretty clear DiPietro would have been starting in Turin even if Miller had made the team. Yet DiPietro is younger and more likely to improve even more, and would have been the starter this year even with Miller there probably.
Whoever agrees with this statement isn't right in the head.therealdeal said:
DiPietro is almost a year and half younger tha Miller. You can't say he'll be the backup next time around as he could break out sometime in between, which I think he will. His potential is higher than Miller's.
SensGuy said:
Miller will be lucky to back up DiPietro I think. As good as Miller is, he has no chance to ever be the U.S #1. The only ones who could take that way from DiPietro are some young up and coming goalies like Schneider or Montoya, but that wont be until after 2010.
sabrefan27
Registered User
Did you honestly expect him to say, "oh yeah, we blew it with the goalies. Miller should have definitely been on the team". That's asinine. And if you take that statement serious, you have even less credibility than you already seem to have.wildone26 said:
Miller is the better goalie right now. DiPietro looks to be a good backup to Miller at future international events. Anything could happen in the years to come, but it's a safe bet that Miller has entered the elite as far as goalies are concerned. DiPietro is not quite there yet. There's not enough of an age different to matter.
Miller is the best American goalie, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Call me biased if you want.
to settle the Miller/Dipietro arguement, 2010 is 3 years away and many things can happen in that period of time(injury, jim carey syndrome, etc.), maybe best to argue that in 3 years.
As it stands now both look like they will make the team, 1 of them will be the starter but things can always change.
As it stands now both look like they will make the team, 1 of them will be the starter but things can always change.
Tracy
Registered User
MayDay
Registered User
Correct.
Not sure why the thread wasn't over after this. FLYLine88 got in with the correct answer in the first reply. What more is there to discuss?
Although the fact of the matter is that Miller has already surpassed DiPietro as the best American goaltender currently. I will be shocked if Miller is not the starting goaltender for the USA in the next Olympics (barring injury, etc.).
Your gigantic man crush on DiPietro is one of the biggest crushes I have ever seen, do you actually believe everything you're saying? It would take a miracle for Miller to start over DiPietro? It's so obvious DiPietro is the US's starting goalie through 2010? Give me a break...
So if you believe a 24 year old who has already been starting goalie for the U.S for the last two years is pretty safe to secure that, when his supposed biggest competition is a 26 year old who did not even make this years Olympic team as a #3 goalie, would not have been the starting goalie even had he been put in at the last moment, and has less improvement left ahead of him then the aforementioned; then you must have a "man crush" to believe that? Yep that makes alot of sense.
I do absolutely believe everything I have said, and nothing has happened to make me change my mind, or certainly said by anyone on this particular thread.
Roughneck
Registered User
I find it somewhat ironic that DiPietro has a 2010 starting spot locked up because he was the starter this Olympics (despite his young age), but that Rick Nash wont be on the Canadian team in 2010 despite being on Team Canada at an even younger age.
I guess Nash isn't as pretty as Ricky.
I guess Nash isn't as pretty as Ricky.
So if you believe a 24 year old who has already been starting goalie for the U.S for the last two years is pretty safe to secure that, when his supposed biggest competition is a 26 year old who did not even make this years Olympic team as a #3 goalie, would not have been the starting goalie even had he been put in at the last moment, and has less improvement left ahead of him then the aforementioned; then you must have a "man crush" to believe that? Yep that makes alot of sense.
I do absolutely believe everything I have said, and nothing has happened to make me change my mind, or certainly said by anyone on this particular thread.
The fact that NOBODY agrees with you doesn't make you think you might be slighly biased? Why are you putting so much weight in THIS year's Olympic selections. Miller just became the full time starter this year and he was hurt when they were making the selections for the Olympic team. Why would they pick a goalie who only had like 15 games under his belt at the time and was hurt? I would be willing to bet almost anything that Ryan Miller will be the starter in 2010.
MayDay
Registered User
You keep making this same point over and over. And it's not much of a point. As others have pointed out repeatedly, the only reason that Miller was not selected was because of his thumb injury, and Team USA was not willing to take any chances that he wouldn't be 100% in time. When it became clear that Miller was fully recovered, it was too late to put him on the team, and Team USA did all that they could do - put him on the practice squad.
Honestly, taking the fact that Miller wasn't on Team USA because of a freaking injury, and then using that to imply that he didn't make it on merit, is both petty and low, since you know how misleading it is.
Furthermore, I don't know why you are so obsessed about Team USA's roster selections as pretty much the only measure of quality that you rely upon. Because clearly Waddell and Co. knew what the hell they were doing when they picked the roster. They did such a bang-up job putting together the roster that went on to medal . . . oh wait, no they didn't. They put together a team that sucked and underachieved.
Despite the fact that he utterly failed in his task to put together a winning team, you take Waddell's roster choices as some kind of gospel truth of player quality. Why? I know why - because it's pretty much that only damn thing you can point to that can be spun to make your boy DiPietro look better than Miller. You certainly can't point to stats. So you keep banging the same Olympic drum over and over and over.
That's your opinion, I disagree. Had there been an open competition in Turin, I think Miller would have earned the top spot. But that's my opinion. They are both opinions, and there's no way of knowing what would have happened in a hypothetical situation. So don't state your opinion of what would have happened as a fact.
How do you figure? DiPietro has been in the NHL for a few years and hasn't significantly improved. In fact, I think he regressed this past season. I know he played behind a worse defense than Miller did, but DiPietro himself looked horribly inconsistent. Following up strong showings with terrible ones, soft goals that can't be blamed on poor defense. The fact that DiPietro is still, still plagued by such inconsistency several years into his NHL career makes me wonder if he will ever mature into a consistent player. And as I said, he seemed to regress this season. If he has so much room for improvement, as you say, he seems to be heading in the wrong direction.
Miller, on the other hand, only just finished up his rookie season. He is still a young player and still has plenty of potential to improve with more games played. He has shown no signs that his development has stagnated or stalled, as DiPietro has. And he should be reaping the benefits of his experience in the Sabres' long playoff run. Indeed, Miller's postseason experience is now much greater than DiPietro's.
Considering there are 3 1/2 more years until the next Olympics, I don't think you can say anything like this. Anything can happen between now and then.
Ah ok, so he can't say that but this other guy can say it would take a miracle for Miller to grab the starting job in 2010?
I'm not saying he's right either. Let's just go ahead and say both are off.
USA should be thankfull they have these two goalies to look at instead of the mighty Mike Dunham.
I'm not saying he's right either. Let's just go ahead and say both are off.
USA should be thankfull they have these two goalies to look at instead of the mighty Mike Dunham.
Alright, sounds good.
The depth of up and coming American goalies does not even compare to the depth of up and coming Canadian forwards. You know that, and I should not even have to point it out.
Chileiceman
Registered User
While I agree with you on the fact that Miller will probably be the starter, Dipietro had a pretty good season and did show signs of progress.
Miller on the other hand, before this season was like the eternal prospect and he took a very long time to develop. But now he is one of the best. Be he did show signs of stalled progress however
While I agree that DiPietro has shown signs of progress I don't really agree that Miller showed signs of stalled progress. I think it was just more of a case of there being no need to rush him. When he was younger Buffalo was not that good and they had solid goaltending in Marty Biron and Mika Noronen, there was no need to pull him up before he was absolutely ready. The only time you could say he may of struggled was a 3 game stint with Buffalo in 2003-2004. Other than that he has excelled at every level he's played at.
Chileiceman
Registered User
Ya I guess your right. He dominated in the AHL while he was there. It just seemed to me he was there forever
- Status
