US National Teams: U30s & Mrs. Potter, U22s, U18s Part II

[HockeyFan87]

Re: US National Teams: U30s & Mrs. Potter, U22s, U18s Part II

So, Coach Stone would rather lose Olympic gold with Harvard players than win Olympic gold without Harvard players??????

I'm not sure this is a fair question. Although I think Coach Stone has a good bit of say in who is picked and who is not, she can't be the only & final person making the decisions (can she?). If she is, then I'd gather that the system as a whole over at USA Hockey is screwed up & having Coach Stone at the helm is the least of their problems. But, considering the amount of success USA Hockey has had of late, I'm going to assume picking nat'l team members is done as a group with Coach Stone's philosophies being kept in mind along the way. And, even then, I know Stone has been with USA Hockey a long time. If there was a sense that she was more interested in pushing a personal agenda, I doubt she would've been the choice as coach.

If I'm not mistaken, weren't there more Univ of Wisconsin players selected to the 2010 team than any other school with Coach Johnson as the head coach? As others have pointed out, the amount of Harvard players is proabably due to Stone being more comfortable and having more trust in their styles than anything else.

As for the selections: surprised Brandt wasn't picked, mildly surprised that McLaughlin was picked over Rigsby, sad Lawler was not included (I had read she was long shot coming in, but I love her character), and thrilled that Pucci is on the team coming off a serious--and apparently career threatening--concussion; she is an underrated player in my opinion.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

I'm not sure this is a fair question. Although I think Coach Stone has a good bit of say in who is picked and who is not, she can't be the only & final person making the decisions (can she?). If she is, then I'd gather that the system as a whole over at USA Hockey is screwed up & having Coach Stone at the helm is the least of their problems. But, considering the amount of success USA Hockey has had of late, I'm going to assume picking nat'l team members is done as a group with Coach Stone's philosophies being kept in mind along the way. And, even then, I know Stone has been with USA Hockey a long time. If there was a sense that she was more interested in pushing a personal agenda, I doubt she would've been the choice as coach.

If I'm not mistaken, weren't there more Univ of Wisconsin players selected to the 2010 team than any other school with Coach Johnson as the head coach? As others have pointed out, the amount of Harvard players is proabably due to Stone being more comfortable and having more trust in their styles than anything else.

As for the selections: surprised Brandt wasn't picked, mildly surprised that McLaughlin was picked over Rigsby, sad Lawler was not included (I had read she was long shot coming in, but I love her character), and thrilled that Pucci is on the team coming off a serious--and apparently career threatening--concussion; she is an underrated player in my opinion.

Brandt not getting selected is such a joke I am having trouble putting my disbelief and disgust into adequate words.

If we fail to get past Canada, this will be the first thing I point out.

 

[HockeyFan87]

Re: US National Teams: U30s & Mrs. Potter, U22s, U18s Part II

Brandt not getting selected is such a joke I am having trouble putting my disbelief and disgust into adequate words.

If we fail to get past Canada, this will be the first thing I point out.

This article indirectly helped explain why Brandt wasn't picked. I don't know that it'll make it any easier for you, but it at least helped me understand the coach's point of view: http://www.usahockeymagazine.com/article/carved-stone

“It’s not going to be an all-star team, it’s going to be a team. And there is a difference,” said Stone, who has won more games at Harvard University than any coach in women’s college hockey history.

“I’m a big believer in team dynamics. Everybody has a role, and it’s time to figure out and get accustomed to it and embrace that role and then do it. But again, there are so many talented players but talent alone is not going to get you what you want.”

 

[joehockey]

Re: US National Teams: U30s & Mrs. Potter, U22s, U18s Part II

I'm not sure this is a fair question. Although I think Coach Stone has a good bit of say in who is picked and who is not, she can't be the only & final person making the decisions (can she?). If she is, then I'd gather that the system as a whole over at USA Hockey is screwed up & having Coach Stone at the helm is the least of their problems. But, considering the amount of success USA Hockey has had of late, I'm going to assume picking nat'l team members is done as a group with Coach Stone's philosophies being kept in mind along the way. And, even then, I know Stone has been with USA Hockey a long time. If there was a sense that she was more interested in pushing a personal agenda, I doubt she would've been the choice as coach.

If I'm not mistaken, weren't there more Univ of Wisconsin players selected to the 2010 team than any other school with Coach Johnson as the head coach? As others have pointed out, the amount of Harvard players is proabably due to Stone being more comfortable and having more trust in their styles than anything else.

As for the selections: surprised Brandt wasn't picked, mildly surprised that McLaughlin was picked over Rigsby, sad Lawler was not included (I had read she was long shot coming in, but I love her character), and thrilled that Pucci is on the team coming off a serious--and apparently career threatening--concussion; she is an underrated player in my opinion.

What is Stone philosophy? When I have watched Harvard they appear to play a very short bench. I hope with the talent of this Team she rolls lines and pushes Canada. A short bench would be a real mistake. Lots of great players that if used as a Team should capture Gold.

I hope Hannah Brandt uses this snub to have three great years at the U and lead the USA in 2018 and maybe 2022 to go down as a great player who showed others her greatness in her actions. I pity Harvard should UM play them with Stone behind the bench.

 

[ARM]

Re: US National Teams: U30s & Mrs. Potter, U22s, U18s Part II

This article indirectly helped explain why Brandt wasn't picked. I don't know that it'll make it any easier for you, but it at least helped me understand the coach's point of view: http://www.usahockeymagazine.com/article/carved-stone

While I'm sure that is true -- much like the Herb Brooks philosophy -- it really doesn't shed any light on Brandt in particular. She is the type of player that makes other players better to an extent that is rarely seen. Maybe Stone did the math, looked at the forwards that figured to line up at center, and decided that Brandt didn't fit, because her best position is center, not wing. Still, the Olympics is about winning, and the best chance to do so is to fill the team with people that can translate their skills into wins. IMO, there are some people on the roster that didn't demonstrate much of that in college.

A big loss in particular to this team is Lawler, for what she can bring in terms of promoting the team off the ice. The sport needs to grow, and it would be nice to maximize those rare moments when the players interact with fans and the media without being buried in protective gear. From what I've seen, Lawler is as good as anyone on Team USA in that regard.

 

[HockeyFan87]

Re: US National Teams: U30s & Mrs. Potter, U22s, U18s Part II

What is Stone philosophy? When I have watched Harvard they appear to play a very short bench. I hope with the talent of this Team she rolls lines and pushes Canada. A short bench would be a real mistake. Lots of great players that if used as a Team should capture Gold.

I hope Hannah Brandt uses this snub to have three great years at the U and lead the USA in 2018 and maybe 2022 to go down as a great player who showed others her greatness in her actions. I pity Harvard should UM play them with Stone behind the bench.

I hope so too. I know she played a short bench at the 2012 Worlds (which I didn't like), but that was with two younger players on the 4th line. I could be mistaken, but I think she played a full bench in the 2013 Worlds. No surprise that the US clearly looked like the faster, fresher, younger team and took home the gold.

Anyway, my post was more just to try and justify some of her decision making. I don't think it's fair to speculate that she has personal motives in picking the Olympic team when none of us truly know the answer.

(Just a general observation, not necessarily directed at anyone: there seems to be a lot of Katey Stone hate on this board. Any reason why? For someone who has more collegiate wins than anyone else in women's hockey, she has a lot of criticism directed towards her. Must've rubbed people the wrong way somehow. I don't remember Coach Johnson garnering this much flak for the 2010 Olympic team.)

 

[HockeyFan87]

Re: US National Teams: U30s & Mrs. Potter, U22s, U18s Part II

While I'm sure that is true -- much like the Herb Brooks philosophy -- it really doesn't shed any light on Brandt in particular. She is the type of player that makes other players better to an extent that is rarely seen. Maybe Stone did the math, looked at the forwards that figured to line up at center, and decided that Brandt didn't fit, because her best position is center, not wing. Still, the Olympics is about winning, and the best chance to do so is to fill the team with people that can translate their skills into wins. IMO, there are some people on the roster that didn't demonstrate much of that in college.

Hence me saying it indirectly referenced Brandt haha . I understand your frustration, though. I was very surprised myself.

A big loss in particular to this team is Lawler, for what she can bring in terms of promoting the team off the ice. The sport needs to grow, and it would be nice to maximize those rare moments when the players interact with fans and the media without being buried in protective gear. From what I've seen, Lawler is as good as anyone on Team USA in that regard.

I was sad on that one as well. I had read that she was a long shot coming in (for whatever reason), so I wasn't surprised as much as I was disappointed. Love the way she plays and, like you said, she's an excellent ambassador for the game.

 

[Hockeysbest]

Who would you have kept/cut?

Dunne doesn't belong there. McMillan and Burke are way better.
Pankowski over Brandt or Skarupa?? I don't think so.
Stecklein is good but not as great as Milica or Burke either.

 

[ARM]

Re: US National Teams: U30s & Mrs. Potter, U22s, U18s Part II

Stecklein is good but not as great as Milica or Burke either.

The latter two are better offensively, but if the goal is to keep the puck out of your own net, then I'd go with Stecklein. For a young D, she makes few mistakes.

 

[HockeyScholar]

Re: US National Teams: U30s & Mrs. Potter, U22s, U18s Part II

While I'm sure that is true -- much like the Herb Brooks philosophy -- it really doesn't shed any light on Brandt in particular. She is the type of player that makes other players better to an extent that is rarely seen. Maybe Stone did the math, looked at the forwards that figured to line up at center, and decided that Brandt didn't fit, because her best position is center, not wing. Still, the Olympics is about winning, and the best chance to do so is to fill the team with people that can translate their skills into wins. IMO, there are some people on the roster that didn't demonstrate much of that in college.

A big loss in particular to this team is Lawler, for what she can bring in terms of promoting the team off the ice. The sport needs to grow, and it would be nice to maximize those rare moments when the players interact with fans and the media without being buried in protective gear. From what I've seen, Lawler is as good as anyone on Team USA in that regard.

This is not a comment on Brandt specifically, but sometimes important (though at times difficult) to recognize that at the elite level in any subjective selection process (academic, athletic, professional) when there are more deserving people than spots, it's not necessarily what a cut-player didn't bring, but what other people did bring. All players aren't necessarily competing against each other, in that respect, but if you're a hustle-in-the-corners type player, and the Olympic Team needs one of those, then it's good to be the best hustle-in-the-corners player.

Brandt may not be lacking at all. There just may have been other players who were bringing their own unique right stuff for this particular team at this time, and with limited places, these other players were selected. Those who were cut are undoubtedly outstanding players with their own unique talents that could be right for another setting/team. A bit of luck involved in any process like this.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

This article indirectly helped explain why Brandt wasn't picked. I don't know that it'll make it any easier for you, but it at least helped me understand the coach's point of view: http://www.usahockeymagazine.com/article/carved-stone

Thanks. Doesn't really address my concerns though. I completely understand the Brooksisms thrown out, and I hope it works out like planned.

However, if they fail to get past Canada for Gold, leaving Brandt off this roster is going to be a big criticism. It's mind boggling to me to be honest.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

While I'm sure that is true -- much like the Herb Brooks philosophy -- it really doesn't shed any light on Brandt in particular. She is the type of player that makes other players better to an extent that is rarely seen. Maybe Stone did the math, looked at the forwards that figured to line up at center, and decided that Brandt didn't fit, because her best position is center, not wing. Still, the Olympics is about winning, and the best chance to do so is to fill the team with people that can translate their skills into wins. IMO, there are some people on the roster that didn't demonstrate much of that in college.

A big loss in particular to this team is Lawler, for what she can bring in terms of promoting the team off the ice. The sport needs to grow, and it would be nice to maximize those rare moments when the players interact with fans and the media without being buried in protective gear. From what I've seen, Lawler is as good as anyone on Team USA in that regard.

Great post.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

I hope so too. I know she played a short bench at the 2012 Worlds (which I didn't like), but that was with two younger players on the 4th line. I could be mistaken, but I think she played a full bench in the 2013 Worlds. No surprise that the US clearly looked like the faster, fresher, younger team and took home the gold.

Anyway, my post was more just to try and justify some of her decision making. I don't think it's fair to speculate that she has personal motives in picking the Olympic team when none of us truly know the answer.

(Just a general observation, not necessarily directed at anyone: there seems to be a lot of Katey Stone hate on this board. Any reason why? For someone who has more collegiate wins than anyone else in women's hockey, she has a lot of criticism directed towards her. Must've rubbed people the wrong way somehow. I don't remember Coach Johnson garnering this much flak for the 2010 Olympic team.)

I'm not being as much critical now as I am being skeptical. Some of the roster decisions are really puzzling. Leaving Brandt off is mind boggling. If they win Gold, I will eat crow. If they don't, I will lay the criticism on really, really heavy.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

Dunne doesn't belong there. McMillan and Burke are way better.
Pankowski over Brandt or Skarupa?? I don't think so.
Stecklein is good but not as great as Milica or Burke either.

Pankowski is one of the big head scratchers. Hope it works out. I have very, very strong doubts that she will bring to the table what Brandt would have.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

This is not a comment on Brandt specifically, but sometimes important (though at times difficult) to recognize that at the elite level in any subjective selection process (academic, athletic, professional) when there are more deserving people than spots, it's not necessarily what a cut-player didn't bring, but what other people did bring. All players aren't necessarily competing against each other, in that respect, but if you're a hustle-in-the-corners type player, and the Olympic Team needs one of those, then it's good to be the best hustle-in-the-corners player.

Brandt may not be lacking at all. There just may have been other players who were bringing their own unique right stuff for this particular team at this time, and with limited places, these other players were selected. Those who were cut are undoubtedly outstanding players with their own unique talents that could be right for another setting/team. A bit of luck involved in any process like this.

I see what you are saying, but don't think anyone left on the roster brings the same type of skillset to the table that Brandt would bring, and I think that skillset will be sorely missed against Canada. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I have strong doubts.

 

[WCHFan]

Re: US National Teams: U30s & Mrs. Potter, U22s, U18s Part II

Dunne doesn't belong there. McMillan and Burke are way better.
Pankowski over Brandt or Skarupa?? I don't think so.
Stecklein is good but not as great as Milica or Burke either.

Way better? I would take Stecklein over Milica! More steady and way better work ethic. My opinion.

 

[Hockeysbest]

Way better? I would take Stecklein over Milica! More steady and way better work ethic. My opinion.

Yeah I will give you that. Steckleins character is stellar while McMillan can be a handful.

 

[ICEBOX]

Re: US National Teams: U30s & Mrs. Potter, U22s, U18s Part II

The roster is pretty much the same roster that competes game in and game out with the Canadian team. I have Enjoyed the changes and progress that this team has made over the last 3 1/2 years. The face of this team has changed dramatically from 2010 for the better. Coach Stone and staff have done a great job evaluating these players in camps. There will always be critics after a selection of this nature. This was probably the most competitive camp that I can remember. 15 years ago you barely had enough solid players to field a team that could compete with Canada. 15 years from now you be able to pick two teams and compete. This says a lot for the growth of women's Hockey. I believe that coach stone is the right coach for the job. She is taking this journey very seriously. The only thing that I would have done differently is maybe take another forward and one less D but I am comfortable with the decisions. To say the roster is a joke is saying your bitter hockeysbest. Your way out of line.

 

[mnstate0fhockey]

The roster is pretty much the same roster that competes game in and game out with the Canadian team. I have Enjoyed the changes and progress that this team has made over the last 3 1/2 years. The face of this team has changed dramatically from 2010 for the better. Coach Stone and staff have done a great job evaluating these players in camps. There will always be critics after a selection of this nature. This was probably the most competitive camp that I can remember. 15 years ago you barely had enough solid players to field a team that could compete with Canada. 15 years from now you be able to pick two teams and compete. This says a lot for the growth of women's Hockey. I believe that coach stone is the right coach for the job. She is taking this journey very seriously. The only thing that I would have done differently is maybe take another forward and one less D but I am comfortable with the decisions. To say the roster is a joke is saying your bitter hockeysbest. Your way out of line.

Brandt was a pretty enormous snub considering the year she had, the skillset she brings, and who they took instead. If this team doesn't win Gold, there will be some very much deserved criticism for that decision.

 

[123kidd]

Brandt was a pretty enormous snub considering the year she had, the skillset she brings, and who they took instead. If this team doesn't win Gold, there will be some very much deserved criticism for that decision.

We get it, you're a Brandt fan.