Solid generation of American D-men

[William H Bonney]

True. But how much of that was Miller?

As great as Miller was, people are starting to give him too much credit for the 2010 Olympic run and not enough credit to the team. That was a great team. Miller obviously was great and a big part of that (Goalies usually are, either good or bad) but they were one bounce their way from winning the gold and that's because the team was great. That gold medal game was about as even as they get and you can't say that if it's strictly a goalie doing the heavy lifting.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

As great as Miller was, people are starting to give him too much credit for the 2010 Olympic run and not enough credit to the team. That was a great team. Miller obviously was great and a big part of that (Goalies usually are, either good or bad) but they were one bounce their way from winning the gold and that's because the team was great. That gold medal game was about as even as they get and you can't say that if it's strictly a goalie doing the heavy lifting.

Fair enough but I feel Miller gave the US the confidence to play as loose as they did. To take chances. To pinch and press the play. The U.S. team oozed confidence and I believe that came from the net.

Canada, on the other hand, was tentative because we did not have a great goalie to fall back on. Brodeur was horrible and Luongo could not hold onto the puck. Canada played scared a lot of the time.

Never under estimate what great goaltending brings to a team. Having said that... you are right, the U.S. did play great.

 

[William H Bonney]

Fair enough but I feel Miller gave the US the confidence to play as loose as they did. To take chances. To pinch and press the play. The U.S. team oozed confidence and I believe that came from the net.

Canada, on the other hand, was tentative because we did not have a great goalie to fall back on. Brodeur was horrible and Luongo could not hold onto the puck. Canada played scared a lot of the time.

Never under estimate what great goaltending brings to a team. Having said that... you are right, the U.S. did play great.

But the Team USA plan all along was to play that way. And they were playing that way before Miller was ever even really tested (first Canada game). Now, they obviously had confidence in Miller going in but so did Canada or a lot of other teams in their goalies. The first game against Canada just reinforced that confidence but they continued to play and attack the way they had been all along.

Surely, it helps, but people get too infatuated with the paper rosters. Canada is going to be able to ice the best paper roster for awhile going forward but when the games happen they don't mean all that much. The USA defense played extremely well and should only be better in the future.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

But the Team USA plan all along was to play that way. And they were playing that way before Miller was ever even really tested (first Canada game). Now, they obviously had confidence in Miller going in but so did Canada or a lot of other teams in their goalies. The first game against Canada just reinforced that confidence but they continued to play and attack the way they had been all along.

Surely, it helps, but people get too infatuated with the paper rosters. Canada is going to be able to ice the best paper roster for awhile going forward but when the games happen they don't mean all that much. The USA defense played extremely well and should only be better in the future.

I have to disagree with 2 points...

The U.S. knew they had the best goalie in the world and played accordingly. To say they "planned" to play loose and aggresive... well, that is all well and good until your goalie lets in a weak one or two, and then things tighten up. Just ask Canada.

If the U.S. had an average goalie their play would have changed drastically - Miller did not let in one bad goal all series (until the last one).

Canada, on the other hand...

Brodeur, against the US, was BRUTAL. He also played poorly against Switzerland until the shootout.

And Luongo... he could not hold onto the puck. Canada had NO confidence in Luongo. They played scared - like if they did not come back, he would let in a bad one.

 

[thomasincanada]

Surely, it helps, but people get too infatuated with the paper rosters. Canada is going to be able to ice the best paper roster for awhile going forward but when the games happen they don't mean all that much. The USA defense played extremely well and should only be better in the future.

Before every olympics it seems there are some Canadians on here talking about how awesome our team is going to be and how others will have problems keeping up. Then after like 2 games we're all back down to earth and hoping to hell we can scrape by. Canada hasn't been able to gel in the olympics like we did in the 80s.. of course not having Gretzky and Lemieux probably plays a part.

Also goaltending may be a concern again for Canada. I don't understand how we can consistently have the best D and forwards in the game.. yet cannot seem to have a top netminder anymore. We have good ones but not great ones. 10/15 years ago that was our biggest strength.. Guys like Roy/Cujo/Belfour always stepped up in international competitions.. now we just pray to god Luongo or whomever doesn't screw it up.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Before every olympics it seems there are some Canadians on here talking about how awesome our team is going to be and how others will have problems keeping up. Then after like 2 games we're all back down to earth and hoping to hell we can scrape by. Canada hasn't been able to gel in the olympics like we did in the 80s.. of course not having Gretzky and Lemieux probably plays a part.

I agree. I think it is because, unlike some other countries, Canada's players are always changing (new ones coming up and taking over) and it takes a while for us to gel. Also, unlike other countries, we do not play a "system".

Also goaltending WILL be a concern again for Canada. I don't understand how we can consistently have the best D and forwards in the game.. yet cannot seem to have a top netminder anymore. We have good ones but not great ones. 10/15 years ago that was our biggest strength.. Guys like Roy/Cujo/Belfour always stepped up in international competitions.. now we just pray to god Luongo or whomever doesn't screw it up.

Other than a small correction (see above), GREAT post!

 

[PaulieVegas]

I totally agree that people give Miller too much credit for our 2010 success. We scored 5 goals against Canada in the preliminary round game, and none were scored by Miller. You can blame Bordeur all you want, but seriously, what more did you want? First goal was a freak deflection, second was a wrist shot from short distance, third he was knocked to the ice by his own d-man pushing an American into him, the fourth goal he probably should have stopped. You know what was the softest goal of that game? Canada's third, scored by Crosby. Miller should never have let that in.

Miller played no role in any games other than the two against Canada. We were in total control against Norway, Finland, and both Switzerland games. Our team played well, not just our goalie.

I do agree that Canada is in trouble when it comes to goalies. I predict Price-Fleury-Ward in 2014. I'd take Miller-Thomas-Quick/Howard over that any day. But, at least Canada has some depth. Today, only Canada, Finland, and the USA can bring three solid goalies to the Olympics.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

I do agree that Canada is in trouble when it comes to goalies. I predict Price-Fleury-Ward in 2014. I'd take Miller-Thomas-Quick/Howard over that any day.

I would take your three goalies in a second over ours.

I agree with your picks but I think Fleury will be # 1 for Canada over Price.

 

[therealdeal]

As long as he wants the job, I think they'll give it to him. But, if they take the same style approach as they did in 2010 (and there's no reason why they shouldn't) then it'll very much be a committee style approach with quite a few GMs with a voice in the process while Burke acts as the public (media) figurehead for them all. The GMs on the advisory committee basically all had a vote and it didn't always go Burke's way in the 2010 Olympic selection process. For example, Burke wanted to carry 12 forwards and 8 d-men in the 2010 Olympics but the majority of the other GMs wanted 13F and 7D. Burke relented to their opinion. For player rating purposes, they basically were all scouts and rated their eligible players accordingly, and updated their lists throughout the process, and then they took the combined lists to get final average rankings to use for their selections. Think much like the way Bob McKenzie does his NHL Draft Prospect rankings.

The current members of the advisory committee for the USA Men's National Team include: Brian Burke (TOR), Paul Holmgren (PHI), Dean Lombardi (LA), Dave Poile (NAS), Ray Shero (PIT), Dale Tallon (FLA), and Don Waddell.

I'm much more interested in who the coach will be. Right now, I'd have to think the frontrunner would be Dan Bylsma with Peter Laviolette in contention as well. Wilson did well, obviously, in the 2010 Olympics but new blood is good and who knows if he'll even be the coach of Toronto at that time anymore.

Man, I didn't know that, that's kinda a cool story, thanks man.

Either way, the real question is is how did this become another Canada discussion.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Either way, the real question is is how did this become another Canada discussion.

What do you mean? The name of this thread is "Solid generation of Canadian D-men".

 

[NotABadPeriod]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Byfuglien will be on the team come 2014. Call it a hunch, and I'd be glad to be proven wrong...

I do think Paul Martin or Brooks Orpik might be to give that D-corps a veteran presence (much like Rafalski in 2010). Granted, guys like Suter and Johnson will not be rookies on the big stage anymore, but still always nice to have that guy.

And don't forget a guy who was impressive in 2010, Tim Gleason, as a possibility. He probably has a long shot because of guys like Yandle, Carlson, Fowler, and Shattenkirk coming up, but he shouldn't be forgotten.

Bogosian is on the outside looking in. I'm not ready to abandon all hope for E Johnson, but he is sliding slowly but surely out of the picture.

And another guy to keep an eye out for may be Matt Carle. It took him a while, but he's become a very good NHL D-man, and he might be ready to take the next step by the time 2014 comes.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Byfuglien will be on the team come 2014. Call it a hunch, and I'd be glad to be proven wrong....

Powerplay yes but he would be such a defensive liability. I would not waste a spot on him.

I do think Paul Martin or Brooks Orpik might be to give that D-corps a veteran presence (much like Rafalski in 2010). Granted, guys like Suter and Johnson will not be rookies on the big stage anymore, but still always nice to have that guy..

But do they bring anything that Suter and Johnson don't? I am not sure about Orpik and Martin on the big ice.

And don't forget a guy who was impressive in 2010, Tim Gleason, as a possibility. He probably has a long shot because of guys like Yandle, Carlson, Fowler, and Shattenkirk coming up, but he shouldn't be forgotten.

Bogosian is on the outside looking in. I'm not ready to abandon all hope for E Johnson, but he is sliding slowly but surely out of the picture.

And another guy to keep an eye out for may be Matt Carle. It took him a while, but he's become a very good NHL D-man, and he might be ready to take the next step by the time 2014 comes.

I agree with all of this.

 

[OttawaRoughRiderFan*]

And another guy to keep an eye out for may be Matt Carle. It took him a while, but he's become a very good NHL D-man, and he might be ready to take the next step by the time 2014 comes.

He got a point and was a Minus 3 tonight.

As a Canadian I am thinking... "Yeah, have him on YOUR Olympic team."

 

[William H Bonney]

Powerplay yes but he would be such a defensive liability. I would not waste a spot on him.

Buff would have to be having a crazy offensive year to make it IMO. He'd still be better suited to give it a go as a forward if he wanted to make the Olympic team.

But do they bring anything that Suter and Johnson don't? I am not sure about Orpik and Martin on the big ice.

I think Martin's time might have passed by then. A shame. I've always been a fan of his and he's unfortunately missed every big tournament team he's been named to due to injury. All the young USA d-men are still young, and improving, and quite a few of those young guys already obtained that experience that you mention. I like Martin though and his game would be a good fit so never say never but he'll be in tough to beat out a Yandle, Goligoski, Fowler, etc. He could always fill that veteran role though.

Orpik, I disagree. He's a physical shutdown d-man but he's actually a great skater too so I wouldn't be worried about him on the big ice. Unless he regresses, I'd be disappointed not to see him there.

I agree with all of this.

Matt Carle would need to improve a lot to make this team. He's a defensive liability and has no international pedigree.