mnstate0fhockey
New member
Bingo!
USCHO Fan Forum
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2014 USA Olympic Hockey
- Thread starter unh1982
- Start date
Bingo!
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
Wanna make sure I'm understanding you correctly. are you saying it's inevitable that the US will surpass Canada in hockey?
It's not a matter of "if", but when.
Wanna make sure I'm understanding you correctly. are you saying it's inevitable that the US will surpass Canada in hockey?
mnstate0fhockey
New member
Wanna make sure I'm understanding you correctly. are you saying it's inevitable that the US will surpass Canada in hockey?
That we'll close the gap. Not saying we'll be more dominant then they are, but I do think it will be an even playing field at some point. Our participation numbers continue to increase (not year over year, but tradjectory), while theirs has evened out.
mnstate0fhockey
New member
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
Not saying Herb Brooks was always right, but he was respected enough to the point where I think his thoughts are worthy of mentioning. Here is a good article on what changes he thought we needed to make in our development model before he passed. It's an interesting read.
<a href="http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-edition/news/1661-brooks-it-s-time-for-change.html">READ ARTICLE</a>
Not saying Herb Brooks was always right, but he was respected enough to the point where I think his thoughts are worthy of mentioning. Here is a good article on what changes he thought we needed to make in our development model before he passed. It's an interesting read.
<a href="http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-edition/news/1661-brooks-it-s-time-for-change.html">READ ARTICLE</a>
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
Anyone that gets a free moment should youtube "1996 World Cup of Hockey". There is a 15 minute summary of game 3. Look at the firepwer of both teams rosters, the intensity compared to the olympics and the overall better brand of hockey. Hopefully the NHL ditches the Olympics and goes back to this early September type of tournament on NHL ice.
Anyone that gets a free moment should youtube "1996 World Cup of Hockey". There is a 15 minute summary of game 3. Look at the firepwer of both teams rosters, the intensity compared to the olympics and the overall better brand of hockey. Hopefully the NHL ditches the Olympics and goes back to this early September type of tournament on NHL ice.
Kane, Suter and Quick are all top 10.
Skill wise Kane but overall game not top ten. I would never include goalies when talking top players in the game they run in cycles you have a hot 4 or 5 then two years later another group of emerges very cyclical. Suter I haven't seen enough but probably top 5 or 6 defenseman . All you need to know is Brooks freaking Orpik was on the team to see the difference in the squads talent wise . Even though it was a perfect format for him because no one is going to try to fight you. If that was Bylsma call he should never be looked at again for USA job . And then you have Justin Faulk nuff said !
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
yes ive seen it already written that Balsom wood is one and done and im sure had influence on getting his best team buddy orpik to sochi to get schooled.
Skill wise Kane but overall game not top ten. I would never include goalies when talking top players in the game they run in cycles you have a hot 4 or 5 then two years later another group of emerges very cyclical. Suter I haven't seen enough but probably top 5 or 6 defenseman . All you need to know is Brooks freaking Orpik was on the team to see the difference in the squads talent wise . Even though it was a perfect format for him because no one is going to try to fight you. If that was Bylsma call he should never be looked at again for USA job . And then you have Justin Faulk nuff said !
yes ive seen it already written that Balsom wood is one and done and im sure had influence on getting his best team buddy orpik to sochi to get schooled.
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
A couple points on Bylsma and Team USA:
1. Bylsma's passive "let's play not to lose" strategy against Canada was obviously a failure. I think most people watching that game could sense that after about 10 minutes of play. Team USA had success in the preliminary round and against the Czechs by being aggressive and forcing the play. Why change was was working? That baffled me.
2. The worst part of that game vs Canada was nothing changed, even after two periods. Try something different, change the attack, do something. It was the same dull passive approach in the 3rd. Despite being dominated, our guys were only down by 1. If we get a fluky goal or a dirty goal, all of sudden it's anyone's game.
3. From what I saw, this flameout by Team USA was not due to personnel. This team was good enough to contend for gold. Was Canada the better team on paper? Absolutely. But with a better plan of attack I think it's a much more competitive game.
A couple points on Bylsma and Team USA:
1. Bylsma's passive "let's play not to lose" strategy against Canada was obviously a failure. I think most people watching that game could sense that after about 10 minutes of play. Team USA had success in the preliminary round and against the Czechs by being aggressive and forcing the play. Why change was was working? That baffled me.
2. The worst part of that game vs Canada was nothing changed, even after two periods. Try something different, change the attack, do something. It was the same dull passive approach in the 3rd. Despite being dominated, our guys were only down by 1. If we get a fluky goal or a dirty goal, all of sudden it's anyone's game.
3. From what I saw, this flameout by Team USA was not due to personnel. This team was good enough to contend for gold. Was Canada the better team on paper? Absolutely. But with a better plan of attack I think it's a much more competitive game.
Re: 2014 USA Olympic Hockey
Very interesting. And in fairly stark contrast to a recent article Ken Dryden wrote for ESPN. He tried to make the case that the reason for the improvements in US hockey since 1980 is the development of a small number of players at a high level. Brooks's argument makes more sense to me.
As for the Olympic tournament, here's what I think: People who say the US team failed against the "good teams" or that they beat teams that "didn't belong in the Olympics" couldn't be more wrong. The US was the best team in the tournament during the preliminaries and quarterfinals, and they were playing very well. Look at the Czech and Slovakian rosters, to say nothing of Russia. Those are excellent teams. Maybe they're not as good as Sweden, but that doesn't mean they're not in the same neighborhood. They definitely aren't as good as Canada, but guess what: nobody is. The way Canada played in its last two games, nobody was going to beat them. Period. If Canada played the semifinal the way they played their opener against Norway, the US would have beaten them. But there isn't a team in the world that can top what Canada did against the US and Sweden. If that roster puts together that kind of effort and execution . . . they're gonna win. The US team definitely embarrassed itself against Finland, but if they played again tomorrow, the US would be the favorite.
Not saying Herb Brooks was always right, but he was respected enough to the point where I think his thoughts are worthy of mentioning. Here is a good article on what changes he thought we needed to make in our development model before he passed. It's an interesting read.
<a href="http://www.letsplayhockey.com/online-edition/news/1661-brooks-it-s-time-for-change.html">READ ARTICLE</a>
Very interesting. And in fairly stark contrast to a recent article Ken Dryden wrote for ESPN. He tried to make the case that the reason for the improvements in US hockey since 1980 is the development of a small number of players at a high level. Brooks's argument makes more sense to me.
As for the Olympic tournament, here's what I think: People who say the US team failed against the "good teams" or that they beat teams that "didn't belong in the Olympics" couldn't be more wrong. The US was the best team in the tournament during the preliminaries and quarterfinals, and they were playing very well. Look at the Czech and Slovakian rosters, to say nothing of Russia. Those are excellent teams. Maybe they're not as good as Sweden, but that doesn't mean they're not in the same neighborhood. They definitely aren't as good as Canada, but guess what: nobody is. The way Canada played in its last two games, nobody was going to beat them. Period. If Canada played the semifinal the way they played their opener against Norway, the US would have beaten them. But there isn't a team in the world that can top what Canada did against the US and Sweden. If that roster puts together that kind of effort and execution . . . they're gonna win. The US team definitely embarrassed itself against Finland, but if they played again tomorrow, the US would be the favorite.
mnstate0fhockey
New member
Very interesting. And in fairly stark contrast to a recent article Ken Dryden wrote for ESPN. He tried to make the case that the reason for the improvements in US hockey since 1980 is the development of a small number of players at a high level. Brooks's argument makes more sense to me.
As for the Olympic tournament, here's what I think: People who say the US team failed against the "good teams" or that they beat teams that "didn't belong in the Olympics" couldn't be more wrong. The US was the best team in the tournament during the preliminaries and quarterfinals, and they were playing very well. Look at the Czech and Slovakian rosters, to say nothing of Russia. Those are excellent teams. Maybe they're not as good as Sweden, but that doesn't mean they're not in the same neighborhood. They definitely aren't as good as Canada, but guess what: nobody is. The way Canada played in its last two games, nobody was going to beat them. Period. If Canada played the semifinal the way they played their opener against Norway, the US would have beaten them. But there isn't a team in the world that can top what Canada did against the US and Sweden. If that roster puts together that kind of effort and execution . . . they're gonna win. The US team definitely embarrassed itself against Finland, but if they played again tomorrow, the US would be the favorite.
Agree with everything you said regarding to the outcome of these Olympics.
As for development and growth of hockey in the US, I agree with you. I think we need to get more kids involved. The NTDP has done great things, but we have to get these resources to more kids. "Broaden the base", as Brooks put it.
I think it goes a bit deeper than the NTDP though too. I think the current model for youth hockey in this country is too cost prohibitive, and although we have seen great growth in non-traditional markets the past 10-20 years, we are going to start seeing diminishing returns unless we make an effort to change some things.
Wrote about my thoughts <a href="http://www.mnhockeycentral.com/apps/blog/show/41732841-community-based-hockey-versus-tier-i-hockey-impact-on-growth-of-hockey-in-america">HERE</a>