The Official Olympic Hockey Thread

[penny lane]

Spoiler:

rumor going, russian coach was the bear mascot!

Seriously, I hope now, this game is not the last memory for the USA -NHL guys in the Olympics.

[Tico Rick]

I'd like to see Kunitz score 5 goals to shut up the Canadian media. Barring that, I'd like to see Sweden win, just so I can pay back my Canadian friend who's been harassing me for the past 24 hours.

Sounds like a 6-5 win for Sweden would be ideal.

[Lt. Dish]

Was it a step back or a set back.

More like a pivot.

Face plant?

Extreme, I know.

Gallows humor is what I resort to when the disappointment yields to resignation of what's done is done.

[largegarlic]

I was traveling and wasn't able to watch either the semifinal or the bronze-medal game, but from what I've heard, it's hard to lay too much blame on the coaching staff (or the players, really). Before the tournament, if you had said that the US would lose a hard-fought, one-goal game to Canada in the semis, most US fans would have likely acknowledged that that was a reasonable result for this team, not something to get incredibly bent out of shape over. Canada is still more talented, even if the gap has shrunk and the US was playing better in the tournament up to that game.

The Finland result is obviously more discouraging, but it's a tough emotional turnaround from playing and losing a close game against your biggest rival to playing a consolation game less than 24 hours later against a team that's hard to hate.

I don't think you can draw too many negative conclusions about the overall direction of USA hockey or Bylsma's coaching ability from this, other than the fact that we can't beat Canada in big games yet.

[bse]

largegarlic: "...it's a tough emotional turnaround from playing and losing a close game against your biggest rival to playing a consolation game less than 24 hours later against a team that's hard to hate."

Like a one goal loss to archrival and neightbouring nation, the Sweden?

It falls on the coach to get his team ready. "We couldn't get to our game" is getting very old. One should ask, why weren't they?

A headcoach can't escape responsibility every time his team loses in a big game, and always come up with this very same excuse.

What did he do trying to avoid this situation? Why weren't they able to get into the game? I mean, HE KNOWS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW that they weren't able to get into the game. But he's the head coach and he's supposed to do something about it. He's just portraying the problem every time, over and over again. Until the next time it happens again.

[SolidSnake]

LGP group think

[Tico Rick]

largegarlic: "...it's a tough emotional turnaround from playing and losing a close game against your biggest rival to playing a consolation game less than 24 hours later against a team that's hard to hate."

Like a one goal loss to archrival and neightbouring nation, the Sweden?

It falls on the coach to get his team ready. "We couldn't get to our game" is getting very old. One should ask, why weren't they?

A headcoach can't escape responsibility every time his team loses in a big game, and always come up with this very same excuse.

What did he do trying to avoid this situation? Why weren't they able to get into the game? I mean, HE KNOWS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW that they weren't able to get into the game. But he's the head coach and he's supposed to do something about it. He's just portraying the problem every time, over and over again. Until the next time it happens again.

What do you want him to say? American players just aren't as good as Canadians?

[bse]

What do you want him to say? American players just aren't as good as Canadians?

But Tico, they surely are as good as or better than the Finns. Why is it that every time games matter, DBs teams explode?
Like today, a 5-0 humiliation and every time Bylsma correctly phrases the outcome as "We weren't able to get into the game" (today in Sochi) or "We didn't get to our game" (in Pittsburgh)

I just wonder how many times we have to hear this over and over again before something is done to correct the various reasons behind these continuous failures in games that matter.

[Lt. Dish]

largegarlic: "...it's a tough emotional turnaround from playing and losing a close game against your biggest rival to playing a consolation game less than 24 hours later against a team that's hard to hate."

Like a one goal loss to archrival and neightbouring nation, the Sweden?

It falls on the coach to get his team ready. "We couldn't get to our game" is getting very old. One should ask, why weren't they?

A headcoach can't escape responsibility every time his team loses in a big game, and always come up with this very same excuse.

What did he do trying to avoid this situation? Why weren't they able to get into the game? I mean, HE KNOWS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW that they weren't able to get into the game. But he's the head coach and he's supposed to do something about it. He's just portraying the problem every time, over and over again. Until the next time it happens again.

What do you want him to say? American players just aren't as good as Canadians?

I don't know about all the times DB has made similar comments after Pens flame outs. But today, specifically, I got the sense he said what he said to avoid throwing some of the players under the bus.

[darkstar57]

largegarlic: "...it's a tough emotional turnaround from playing and losing a close game against your biggest rival to playing a consolation game less than 24 hours later against a team that's hard to hate."

Like a one goal loss to archrival and neightbouring nation, the Sweden?

It falls on the coach to get his team ready. "We couldn't get to our game" is getting very old. One should ask, why weren't they?

A headcoach can't escape responsibility every time his team loses in a big game, and always come up with this very same excuse.

What did he do trying to avoid this situation? Why weren't they able to get into the game? I mean, HE KNOWS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW that they weren't able to get into the game. But he's the head coach and he's supposed to do something about it. He's just portraying the problem every time, over and over again. Until the next time it happens again.

What do you want him to say? American players just aren't as good as Canadians?

Or the Finnish care more? Seriously they where motivated to have Selanne go out with a medal, that seems to get lost in all the bylsma bashing

[superconan]

Ya the Finns cared and would have beaten Canada if they were playing for bronze.

[shmenguin]

In response to an above post...the loss to Canada was not "hard fought"

[Spangler]

Yeah, I was going to say I actually think DB has a better chance at coaching again than Shero does at GM'ing again for USA.

Why? Shero was Asst GM. Poile was the GM.

Everyone was selected before Poile got injured, so what does the GM have to do once they board the flights to Sochi?

Brian Burke had a huge influence in putting together the team, too.

[pensfan1989]

Dejan had a pretty good column on Bylsma.

http://triblive.com/sports/dejankovacev ... z2u5t9l0Jo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me, results are what matters. And again, we saw a Bylsma-led team steamroll through the games that in the big picture don't really matter and come up way short in the ones that do.

[FreeCandy44]

Honestly....who cares? Bring on the real games. Pens vs Habs baby!

[Tico Rick]

Dejan had a pretty good column on Bylsma.

http://triblive.com/sports/dejankovacev ... z2u5t9l0Jo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me, results are what matters. And again, we saw a Bylsma-led team steamroll through the games that in the big picture don't really matter and come up way short in the ones that do.

We steamrolled over weak teams, as we should have, but to paint it as the US steamrolling throughout the preliminary rounds only to choke when it counts - as some are doing - is inaccurate. The US could have very easily lost to the Russians. Conversely, they only lost to the Canadians by one goal. The shellacking at the hands of the Finns could be due to, as others have suggested, a letdown less than 24 hours after the biggest game of most US players' careers while facing a team inspired to win a medal for Teemu.

The top tier teams in this tournament are all very, very good, and I think it's unfair to lay the blame for the US not medalling at the feet of Bylsma. Not that he is blameless, but there are other factors, such as the underperformance of Patrick Kane and the loss of Paul Martin, that I'd rank much higher up there.

But as Free Candy says, who cares? Let's hope all of this just makes Geno, Orpik, Martin, Jokinin, and Maatta more motivated to win the Cup.

[DudeMan2766]

I'm sure if we won gold the attitude would have been "Who cares?"

[dodint]

My favorite part of this is that people claiming Blysma didn't have a part in this, like Tico's thoughtful post above, are basically saying it doesn't matter who the coach was at all. Which is fine but then it makes all the chest thumping about how the Pens staff is so well represented at Team USA seem pretentious and hollow.

[Tico Rick]

Acceptance is the fifth stage of loss and grief. Maybe some of us are not there yet.

[Factorial]

I'm sure if we won gold the attitude would have been "Who cares?"

Until he wins the cup again this means nothing.

[dodint]

Acceptance is the fifth stage of loss and grief. Maybe some of us are not there yet.

hah. Awesome.

[the riddler]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck- ... 57389.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lt. Dish]

Board strategists, please help me understand something. I warn you, these are going to sounds like incredibly stupid questions, but while I'm here to be entertained (and you guys often succeed here!), I'm also here to learn a few things:

Why would any coach intentionally "declaw" or neuter their team with a passive strategy? And why, when you purposefully constructed an "abrasive," in-your-face roster? I'm not arguing against the suggestion that DB did that; in fact, I'm not even addressing him right here. I just don't know why there would ever be a reason to do it.

OR, let me pose the question from another angle: What is the intention of deploying a 1-2-2, and is the neutering a byproduct of it in general, or just when things go wrong?

Back to DB: Do the rest of you see Parise's comment about the 1-2-2 and one forechecker as an indictment? Also, if that were the strategy USA were insisting on using, how could it have been deployed with greater (OK, any) success?

I wonder if anyone tried to talk him out of it. We'll probably never know.

Thanks, guys. Sorry, if I'm all over the place or confusing.

[Idoit40fans]

don't the pens usually run a 1-2-2? Its moer of like a 1-1-1-2 I guess with the two forwards almost cycling in and out of the forecheck to force the puck carrier to his backhand and then the second forward to take over the forecheck if/when the puck goes over to the other dman. By the time that switch has occurred, that first guy is back at the top of the zone. with the defenseman who previously had the puck. The third guy is then to take away a lane or apply pressure to the puck carrier.

Anyway...I think everyone runs their own version of a 1-2-2, but having that loosely described structure doesn't necessarily mean its passive. I've seen a lot of people complain that the US shouldn't have been trying to run with the Canadians...

As far as my thoughts go...I think if they really sent two hard forecheckers and got really aggressive, they would have been asking for a track meet that you don't want to get in when you're less talented than the other team. Canada has a lot of cool defensemen with great puck skills that aren't going to be rattled by that pressure and are going to find their man for odd man attacks. The reason a team can get away with this normally is that they aren't playing an all star team. Every team has rookies that will get rattled and guys like Scuderi who can't handle the puck well and have 1 option and 1 option only...have the puck on the forehand and play it off the glass. Neither the US nor Canada have guys like that, so I don't think more aggressive was a great idea. Like I said, I'd rather be a little more passive when you have the advantage on goal and arguably on defense.

The US wanted a 1-0 game, but they came out on the wrong side of it.

[Lt. Dish]

don't the pens usually run a 1-2-2? Its moer of like a 1-1-1-2 I guess with the two forwards almost cycling in and out of the forecheck to force the puck carrier to his backhand and then the second forward to take over the forecheck if/when the puck goes over to the other dman. By the time that switch has occurred, that first guy is back at the top of the zone. with the defenseman who previously had the puck. The third guy is then to take away a lane or apply pressure to the puck carrier.

Anyway...I think everyone runs their own version of a 1-2-2, but having that loosely described structure doesn't necessarily mean its passive. I've seen a lot of people complain that the US shouldn't have been trying to run with the Canadians...

As far as my thoughts go...I think if they really sent two hard forecheckers and got really aggressive, they would have been asking for a track meet that you don't want to get in when you're less talented than the other team. Canada has a lot of cool defensemen with great puck skills that aren't going to be rattled by that pressure and are going to find their man for odd man attacks. The reason a team can get away with this normally is that they aren't playing an all star team. Every team has rookies that will get rattled and guys like Scuderi who can't handle the puck well and have 1 option and 1 option only...have the puck on the forehand and play it off the glass. Neither the US nor Canada have guys like that, so I don't think more aggressive was a great idea. Like I said, I'd rather be a little more passive when you have the advantage on goal and arguably on defense.

The US wanted a 1-0 game, but they came out on the wrong side of it.

Thank you, Idoit. I appreciate your thoughts.