Metaloctopus

quote:

---

Leafs fans have been shitting on him all tournament

Complaining he doesn’t play like that for them.

---

Then they don't know hockey. He's well known for being one of the best two way forwards in the league, and not just an offensive guy.

Leafs fans are to hockey, as Mets or Phillies fans are to baseball. Despite the fact that their franchises usually don't win anything that matters, they all seem to think it's always championship or bust, and they hate just about everyone on their teams, unless they win a championship.

quote:

---

One final thing I would also add (and I put this in a different thread on the MSB, but probably more fitting here): A goalie being on fire is part of the game of hockey and sometimes fluky… But Hellebuyck has been the best goalie in the world for 5+ years now and was literally the NHL MVP last year (EXTREMELY rare for a goalie to win it. Like a non-QB winning NFL MVP. It almost always just goes to the guy with the most points).

Going into the tournament, goaltending and defensive pairings was considered an American strength, compared to the Canadian advantage at forward. It’d be a bit different if Hellebuyck was just an above average NHL goalie (like Binnington is) and stood on his head.

No baseball fan would call it a miracle/fluke if in a game 7, Team A’s Cy Young winner outdueled Team B’s above average ace to beat Team B’s better lineup. Goaltending is part of the equation, and the U.S.’s was well-known to be superior. It’s not a fluke Hellebuyck outplayed Binnington (who was pretty good today, too).

Do I think Canada generally outplayed the U.S. today? Yes. (Which does NOT mean I think the U.S. didn’t deserve the gold.) But I always find it funny that goalies “steal” games, no matter how good they are. If Connor McDavid had 2G, 2A today and Canada won, no one would say he “stole” the game or it was a fluke. If Tom Wilson did? Sure, maybe fair. But Hellebuyck is elite. He’s the McDavid of goalies.

---

Indeed. Goalies are the key to any Medal, or Cup run. I just thought the US came out sloppy in this game, and played a bit timid. But they came through when they needed to, not just Hellebuyck, but guys breaking up passes to prevent sure fire scoring chances and, of course, putting the put in the back of the net one more time than Canada did. If anything, Canadians should be concerned that they couldn't beat us on a day when we weren't close to our best.

I think a lot of the perceived advantages that people think the Canadians have among their forwards is overblown. They have the better top line, but I'll take our overall depth at forward over theirs. Very comparable, scoring wise, but our guys also get back on defense and play with meaningful physicality (not just gooning it up like Tom Wilson likes to do). Again, not our best showing throughout much of this game, especially when you compare it to how we played them both games at the 4 Nations, but I'm proud of them for staying with it and not giving in.

Now that the gold medal barrier is broken against Canada, I'm excited to see Team USA play with even greater confidence in the years to come.

I don't want to listen to Garth Brooks, no matter when, or where, or why it is being played.

LSU sports plays some of the most annoying music at games, just because it says something about Baton Rouge, or Louisiana, in general.

No question they have the talent. It all has to come together, which is never a guarantee, and baseball is also cruel at times with how weird things happen.

The opportunity is there, though. Gotta have the building blocks in place, and we have those. We'll see how it develops.

quote:

---

yeah, well, don't know what to tell you other than you're wrong.

Not an argument here, you're just wrong.

---

You're free to believe that. But no data will back that up, and just logically speaking, when you have a system that encourages players to chase money or playing time elsewhere, when they don't get immediate playing time where they already are, you end up with very thin rosters, in terms of quality of depth, and it is also very hard to build team chemistry, because there is so much turnover every year. That leads to a very watered down product, and the results on the field all across the country attest to that fact.

Nothing about that is "better". I'm all ears if you have a reasonable argument.

It was WAY too conservative in the third period, and that had to be all on Mike Sullivan. I don't think the players would choose to hold themselves back like that.

The first period was pretty even, but team USA owned the second period. It could have been 4 or 5 to nothing going into the third if not for Markstrom playing uncharacteristically well. It just felt like the flood gates were ready to burst open in that third period if we could carry that momentum and get a quick goal, but instead it was dump and change, dump and change, all period. I kept saying to myself "Sullivan is treating this game like it's 3 or 4 to nothing, and trying not to make mistakes, and it's going to cost us". Sure enough, it did... At least temporarily. A one goal lead is not something you sit on like a mother hen.

But you saw what happened as soon as there wasn't a lead to desperately cling to, and the guys were allowed to play free again. They immediately started hounding the offensive zone in the last minute and a half of regulation, and then totally dominated overtime, just like they dominated the second period. If Mike Sullivan ever tries that conservative approach again without a sufficient lead to justify it, Bill Guerin should call down to the bench and inform him that he's fired, and one of the assistants will coach the rest of the game and tournament. You've got a team full of super stars, and that's how you want to tell them to close a game?

If it sounds like I'm not excited about the win, believe me, I am very excited and proud of the team. I'm just mad that our coach almost got us eliminated. I hope he learned a lesson, and that the players all rallied together and said "coach, let us win the game, instead of trying not to lose".

quote:

---

Lots of down votes from people with no sense of humor. You miserable bastards. lol

---

This place has no sense of humor or sarcasm. Everything goes over most of their heads.

We had almost 50 shots on goal to their 20, our goalie gave up two bad goals, and the first goal against us was just an unlucky bounce off our own defender's skate. This game was never close by any measure outside of luck and bad goaltending. The offense didn't have an inspiring first period, but they laid it on after that.

My only real issue with this game was Swayman's performance, and he's not our #1 goalie.

I will never, ever understand why we don't have cameras set up at every important angle. Every single year we sit here listening to people telling us "sorry, we just don't have an angle to see it", and I shake my head wondering how that can possibly still be the case.

"Gee, I wish we could do something, but we just haven't figured out how to solve the world's greatest mysteries. If only we knew how to somehow see an angle where human eyes aren't located, we'd gladly solve this mind melting problem"... Says some guy while miraculously having a conversation on a tiny device with someone else who's 3,000 miles away. If only we knew how to solve problems.

quote:

---

By that standard the 1980 team shouldn't be a part of any USNT discussion. Here's the difference and this team is showing glimpses of it. That 2002 team was an All Star team. Pick the top 20 skaters and 3 goalies. I'm sure politics played into it with everyone wanting on that team as well. The 2010 team reached the GMG (nearly a OT win vs Canada in Canada no less) by gelling together into a functional team. IIRC, there were a ton of comparisons between the MOI and beating Canada in their own country.

---

I don't really know what you mean by any of this.

This was a conversation about best roster. Clearly, the 1980 team was not a very talented roster, considering almost none of them ever made it to the NHL. And considering they were going up against professionals from all over the Soviet Union, that's why it's the greatest upset in sports history. But that's a conversation about accomplishment, not best roster.

The 2002 team was an All Star team, because that's what the Olympics are (when they let the professionals play). 2010 was just not nearly as talented of an All Star roster. Both teams won silver and lost to Canada in the gold medal game. As someone else said, the 2010 team rode on the back of Ryan Miller. If Ryan Miller had that 2002 lineup around him, we'd have won gold.

You talk about the 2010 team gelling together into a functional team, as if to say that the 2002 team was dysfunctional, and yet both teams won silver. Doesn't seem like you have your facts straight on this one.

Also... What politics? What would that have had to do with picking players on that '02 team?

quote:

---

Anyone who said Brock Nelson shouldn’t be on the team can kindly STFU now

---

Brock was a weird choice for last year's Four Nations tournament, because he was ice cold, and remained so in the tournament. But this year, he's been on fire for at least two months and on pace to blow way his personal bests. He was an easy choice for this tournament, and I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with that. Obviously it's paying off very quickly.