In response to Wheatskins' comment:

But it isn't just any old tournament, it is literally the biggest showcase of up-and-coming talent that you can find.  It is the biggest tournament these kids have ever played in, and a rare opportunity to play for their country.  Why is it unfair to want Hamilton to stand out?  

I know you can't judge him by one tournament or make general conclusions about his talents from this, but surely you can be disappointed that a kid who has stood out everywhere he's played looks very average on the biggest stage for him and his peers.

I thought Hamilton was one guy that we could have very high expectations for at the WJC, certainly moreso than any other Bruins prospect.

Agreed on the forwards.

In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

This seems to be Canadas crutch on more than one occassion and at more than one level/.Remember when they went to the Olympics and had Kris Draper on the team, because they tried to form more of a team than collection of all-star talents?  It's almost like they outsmart themselves while picking the teams and perhaps have too many good players to choose from..i still can't beleive Seguin was left off the tem that year and if I remember correctly Nugent-Hopkins was too.

In response to Wheatskins' comment:

Bravo !

 

In response to kelvana33's comment:

He wasn't good enough at the time. It didn't surprise me.

In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

48 goals and 58 assists in that year he didnt make it. Just months later was named the #1 ranked prospect by Central Scouting. I understand he had a strong finish that year, but he wasn't good enough to make that team?

[/QUOTE]

He wasn't good enough at the time. It didn't surprise me.

[/QUOTE]

48 goals and 58 assists in that year he didnt make it. Just months later was named the #1 ranked prospect by Central Scouting. I understand he had a strong finish that year, but he wasn't good enough to make that team?

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, there's no doubt that Canada has some very difficult decisions to make with the WJC teams, moreso than anyone else.  But...I still disagree with that one, at the time and now.

In resp

[/QUOTE]

48 goals and 58 assists in that year he didnt make it. Just months later was named the #1 ranked prospect by Central Scouting. I understand he had a strong finish that year, but he wasn't good enough to make that team?

[/QUOTE]

Points ! ARGGGGH ! 

Did Seth Griffith( he was 3rd ) make this years team based on points to go along with many others who are atop of the scoring lists ? Why even look at other aspects of the game ? Just use a scoring leaders list.

And being rated the #1 propsect by CSB ? Do you realize that the majority of that team had already been through a draft ? Being rated #1 meant he was that as far as draft eligible players .

It didn't mean his game was good enough to be in the top 13 forwards in all of Canada ( which included 18 and 19 year olds with more rounded games ).   

Yes, he wasn't good enough . 

In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

You'd know more than me chowda, only saw him play after it was clear he might be drafted by the Bruins..I remember watching his Whalers get ousted by Halls much better Spitfires team and while his team was clearly outmatched it wasnt the best series to judge him..Add that and what we have seen so far in his NHL career, and looking at some of the names from that team now, I guess I am doing more of  monday morning quaterback and not looking at what it was at the time..I've read that the fact that he wasnt on the team may have helped his stock rise in a weird way.

[/QUOTE]

Points ! ARGGGGH ! 

Did Seth Griffith( he was 3rd ) make this years team based on points to go along with many others who are atop of the scoring lists ? Why even look at other aspects of the game ? Just use a scoring leaders list.

And being rated the #1 propsect by CSB ? Do you realize that the majority of that team had already been through a draft ? Being rated #1 meant he was that as far as draft eligible players .

It didn't mean his game was good enough to be in the top 13 forwards in all of Canada ( which included 18 and 19 year olds with more rounded games ).   

Yes, he wasn't good enough . 

[/QUOTE]

But all that aside, and drawing only from your personal opinion...don't you think Seguin would have done well on that team?  Don't you think even a crowded Canada roster of star prospects could use such a dynamic scorer?

I still think Seguin should have made the team and I recall some knowledgable hockey people arguing for that too.

That said, I don't think Canada does any better or worse than other countries in trying to select a team that can play particular roles, forecheck, penalty kill, etc.  They can't just have 12 star scorers at forward, so I get the attempt to build a balanced team.  And in Canada, there will be fantastic players left off the roster.

Doesn't mean we can't b*tch about it afterwards though...

In response to Fletcher1's comment:

Hamilton was put in a shutdown role with Harrington to play against top lines. Pretty hard to stand out when your job description is in that role. People don't pay as much attention to this part of the game.

In the 2 wins against Russia and the U.S. ( two offensive minded clubs ) two goals were given up. Standing out ? No. But he did the job given to him. 

P.S. Would a bomb from the blueliner under the crossbar be considered a stand out play ?

In response to Fletcher1's comment:

Points ! ARGGGGH ! 

Did Seth Griffith( he was 3rd ) make this years team based on points to go along with many others who are atop of the scoring lists ? Why even look at other aspects of the game ? Just use a scoring leaders list.

And being rated the #1 propsect by CSB ? Do you realize that the majority of that team had already been through a draft ? Being rated #1 meant he was that as far as draft eligible players .

It didn't mean his game was good enough to be in the top 13 forwards in all of Canada ( which included 18 and 19 year olds with more rounded games ).   

Yes, he wasn't good enough . 

[/QUOTE]

But all that aside, and drawing only from your personal opinion...don't you think Seguin would have done well on that team?  Don't you think even a crowded Canada roster of star prospects could use such a dynamic scorer?

I still think Seguin should have made the team and I recall some knowledgable hockey people arguing for that too.

That said, I don't think Canada does any better or worse than other countries in trying to select a team that can play particular roles, forecheck, penalty kill, etc.  They can't just have 12 star scorers at forward, so I get the attempt to build a balanced team.  And in Canada, there will be fantastic players left off the roster.

Doesn't mean we can't b*tch about it afterwards though...

[/QUOTE]

Honestly ? No.

There were many OHL games where he was invisible. This was also said by some knowledgable hockey observers. 

Do you put players like that on a WJC team ? Players who get picked for these teams show up and are noticeable in what they do every game . Seguin was not one of them. His play was not consistent enough to make the team.

In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

That's exactly what I was debating on this thread with Shupe.
Also maybe we would see more of those bombs if Canada's PP was more effective. Only time it looked good was the 5mins assessed on boarding call against the Russians and he had one of the goals.

 

In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment: [/QUOTE]

Hamilton was put in a shutdown role with Harrington to play against top lines. Pretty hard to stand out when your job description is in that role. People don't pay as much attention to this part of the game.

In the 2 wins against Russia and the U.S. ( two offensive minded clubs ) two goals were given up. Standing out ? No. But he did the job given to him. 

P.S. Would a bomb from the blueliner under the crossbar be considered a stand out play ? [/QUOTE]

Well put!

 

Hamilton was put in a shutdown role with Harrington to play against top lines. Pretty hard to stand out when your job description is in that role. People don't pay as much attention to this part of the game.

 

We can blame the forwards all you want, but when you lose 5-1, the defense was not "shutting down" anybody either.  Especially when all 5 goals were the result of wide open looks at the net and uncontested shots.  I've been watching hockey long enough that I am not swayed by a big shot , as implied by several here.  I watched Hamilton pretty carefully and shupe stated that he did too.  He wasn't great in his own end, wasn't very physical (for a "shutdown" player), and did practically nothing on the powerplays he was supposed to be leading, according to many people.  Not a great performance.

If you think that I'm blind to the nuance of the position, and would only be swayed by a big shot, I might argue that maybe you're not comfortable offering honest criticism of a guy that had been projected to be on the Bruins blueline by now, and just got outplayed by a bunch of lesser heralded teenagers from other countries.  Either that or he's just not that good and you guys already know that from watching him regularly.  But if he's as good as everyone has said in the OHL -- then why can't he stand out in a junior tournament?  I can only speak for myself and my impressions were built more on hype than actual viewing of Hamilton, but I was disappointed.  I still don't know why that isn't a valid opinion.

In the NHL, Hamilton will be facing better forwards than Jimmy Vesey and Johnny Gaudreau.

In response to Fletcher1's comment:

Shut down defence pairing or not, he did very little else for a OHL defenceman of the year. And as has been mentioned, this tournament is for teenagers, where you'd think a big, strong and talented player such as Dougie would dominate in all aspects. But again, this is my opinion only and have not watched him on a regular basis in the OHL. Maybe like others on this board i just expected too much. We'll see how he does taking a regular shift in the NHL. Can't wait

In response to Wheatskins' comment:

I wasn't dumping on him either.  I was not impressed with his play. Some shine and some don't. He's still a very solid prospect.  I just don't think he played well in this tournament.  I believe he could have been a huge difference maker.  

NAS. I couldn't have been clearer that the us team was the better team.  And that I'm hoping they thump the swedes.   6-5 is my prediction.  

Shut down role doesn't mean invisible.  Marc Staal was used in the same role and was amazing and impacted the games.  Hamilton did not!   I didn't say he is a dud.  I said he was very hyped coming into this tourney to the point I figure he could and should be a difference maker.  Is he deserving of an allstar def award for this tourney?  Answer is No.   I believe he should have been. Shut down doesn't mean invisible.   chara is a "shut down" damn.  Pronger was the same.  Stevens was.  Neidemeyer was.  It doesn't mean hide in your end.  He wasn't a physical force at all.  What he has done to date I figured he would have been a standout.  

I think he's an excellent prospect.  I just hoped for more.  I don't think that's a bad thing.  

Lots of true things here, and some that seem contradictory but I don't think they really are. 

No excuses - this Canadian team got thumped in all phases of the game, and it's equally the result of the USA playing very well and the Canadians playing unfathomably poorly.  They were awful, and the two things that stuck out to me were that they weren't precise with their passes and then, when they got behind, they stopped passing.  I lost count of the number of Canadian rushes that consisted of one player trying to beat the entire American squad, getting choked off high in the offensive zone, and whipping a harmless shot that was quickly stopped, recovered, and turned around by the USA.

Hamilton was not going to live up to some people's expectations in this tourney, and let me warn you now, he's not going to live up to similar expectations as an NHLer when he arrives. It's more than just being given a shutdown role; Spott's gameplan didn't give him much opportunity to shine.  Couple that with not being a first or second offensive option in most situations and he didn't have a lot of the usual support he has in Niagara.  You should be prepared for this when he arrives in Boston, too - he will not have the freedom or the offensive opportunities he has in Niagara.

I thought he was one of Canada's better offensive players today.  He made decent passes that created space for the recipient.  He tried to sneak down below the hash on more than one occasion - and at good times - but either didn't receive a pass or received a pass that he had to bring back before shooting.  That's been true whenever he's tried something more dynamic for most of the tournament, and on a larger scale, despite some very skilled offensive D, it's been true of the D's offensive production in general.  Ryan Murphy didn't record a single point. 

I put a lot of this on the coaching staff.  I felt the same way last year.  I still remember staring at the screen while Canada was on the PK and trying to figure out whose brilliant idea it was to have a complicated rotation so that you could send guys deep into the corners to pressure the puck - in a short tournament with little time for players to practice something that would be counter-intuitive for many of them.  Spott had a very gifted set of offensive D, but they didn't exactly thrive.  His lines never had much chemistry.  And they weren't ready to go for the biggest game of the tourney.  Coaching fail.  Phil Housley did a much better job.

 

This tournament is the most I have seen of Hamilton and am disappointed by his lack of impact on the games.  Maybe it was coaching/system as Book suggests, maybe my expectations were just too high as Chowdah suggests.  Maybe his lack of physical play could correlate with the suspensions that were handed out in earlier games or maybe folks that see him on a regular basis would tell me that he just isn't that physical.  He wasn't bad, he just didn't stand out, performing below my expectations for a kid with his resume.

Hamilton was the 9th overall pick in the 2011 draft, while Jacob Trouba was the 9th overall pick in the 2012 draft.  Trouba has been a standout in the tournament, while DH has been so-so.  In the "expecations game", I would have expected Hamilton to be able to hang with Trouba in terms of production and impact.  For whatever reason, it just didn't play out that way. 

 

 

In response to Bookboy007's comment:

Probably the most important quote to the whole dicussion.

In response to Fletcher1's comment:

 Hamilton's offensive game is way ahead of his defensive game at this point. I have posted multiple times. I also posted his game was not of a physical brand of hockey.

Sorry you missed all of that but your's and others expectations of his defensive game sure as heck didn't come from anything I ever posted. It was in your heads. I have pointed out numerous times that he has to get better with this part of the game.

Compared to where he once was with his defence in the past I was encouraged by the way  he played the shutdown role in this tourney.

I don't think your blind to the nuances of the game, I just think your expectations were ridiculously high. Apparently, you and others didn't know anything about this part of his game and thought he should put on his Superman cape on the back end.

And considering you've watched hockey long enough I'm surprised that you don't know that the success of a PP comes from working as a unit. Saying Hamilton didn't do anything means individuality was expected. The whole PP unit was not at their best making nobody look good.

And the goals in the 5-1 loss were a result of the shutdown roled defenceman not shutting down anything ? A bit of finger pointing there don't you think considering they were not all the result of any 2 specific shutdown roled players ( Harrington and Hamilton ).

TLDR

In response to Bookboy007's comment:

Once you again you nail it! Very well said on your points above,

It comes down to expectations , so many of us here (inclding myself) that don't watch much or any of him from the OHL thought here comes the Bruins next Ray Bourque . There's a reason from being maybe a top 3-4 draft he slipped down .

 

In response to Crowls2424's comment:

Not comparing the 2 nor whom will have a better NHL career although making the comparison for 2 differernt draft years with differrent draft eligible players is just the wrong way looking at it.  What are we to say then of Morgan Reilly that was drafted higher in 2012 than Touba and Burke saying if he had the no1 pick he would have still taken Reilly.

 

Actually, Crowls, I think the answer is "both" or "all of these together" and it's good to get this on the record before Hamilton arrives in Boston.  In Niagara, Hamilton is aggressive with his offensive contributions (shooting, cutting backdoor, jumping into the play etc.) and it plays a big role in his impressive point totals.  He won't have that same freedom in Boston, or, if he gets it, it won't be until Claude trusts that he knows his defensive responsibilities.  Remember, Johnny Boychuk had a 65 point season in Providence but has never topped 16 in the NHL.  Part of that is what the Bruins expect from their D.  Chara plays half the game and is a focal point on the PP - that's why he among the whole D corps gets points.  That won't be Hamilton's opportunity.  He'll need to play very much the way Spott has asked him to play before he sees enough ice to make an offensive impact. 

Chowdah sees him a lot more than I do, but every time I've seen him in an OHL game, it seems Chowdah's read is bang-on: decision-making isn't always perfect, and, in trying to dominate, he can start chasing the play. He's also not consistently a physical force, but, like Chara, he uses his size in a lot of different ways to disrupt the opposition.  Great skills, very creative, makes good passes, nimble for a guy his size.  He's going to be very good - someone here suggested Tyler Myers as a comparison, but I think Hamilton will be a better all-around player, maybe by a lot.  I doubt he follows Myers' trajectory, though - he won't have a huge offensive seasons as a rook followed by a huge dip (though Stanley will follow him closely, I'm sure...).

I could be wrong, but I anticipate a lot of these "disappointed" comments when Hamilton arrives - very much like Seguin's first year.

 

 

[/QUOTE]

 Hamilton's offensive game is way ahead of his defensive game at this point. I have posted multiple times. I also posted his game was not of a physical brand of hockey.

Sorry you missed all of that but your's and others expectations of his defensive game sure as heck didn't come from anything I ever posted. It was in your heads. I have pointed out numerous times that he has to get better with this part of the game.

Compared to where he once was with his defence in the past I was encouraged by the way  he played the shutdown role in this tourney.

I don't think your blind to the nuances of the game, I just think your expectations were ridiculously high. Apparently, you and others didn't know anything about this part of his game and thought he should put on his Superman cape on the back end.

And considering you've watched hockey long enough I'm surprised that you don't know that the success of a PP comes from working as a unit. Saying Hamilton didn't do anything means individuality was expected. The whole PP unit was not at their best making nobody look good.

And the goals in the 5-1 loss were a result of the shutdown roled defenceman not shutting down anything ? A bit of finger pointing there don't you think considering they were not all the result of any 2 specific shutdown roled players ( Harrington and Hamilton ).

TLDR

[/QUOTE]

Well, it is hard to argue about Hamilton with guys like Chowdah and Legion because they are so much more knowledgeable about his development and his play in the OHL.  That said,  I still haven't seen anything to convince me that I shouldn't be disappointed with his WJC performance, on some level.

I think Book may have brought us to a new and more valid excuse -- blame the coaching.  Chowdah is arguing that defensive play is not Hamilton's strength and everyone knows he may be the best offensive d-man in the OHL.  But then, the excuse for Hamilton here is that he was put in a purely defensive "shutdown" role in the WJC.  How can that be?

It seems like a dubious decision to take the best two-way defensmen in the OHL and tell him to play a one-way game, but maybe that's what happened.  With Hamilton's vast offensive skills, you have to think he was at least encouraged to play a two-way game.  No? If not, then the coahing staff apparently asked him to avoid his best skill set, which is hard for me to believe.

As for Hamilton's performance as a shutdown defensemen, that's a mixed bag as well.  I typically think of shutdown d-men being physical and we've heard a lot about Hamilton's size and strength.  What's more, the opponents were small.  We can all complain about the penalties and/or suspensions for hitting in the tournament, but you still would want Hamilton to hit and be physical with the 5'8 160 lb. US forwards.  He wasn't.  Maybe that just isn't his game, which again brings us back the possibility that he shouldn't be (or wasn't) playing a shutdown role.  The comparison with Trouba was a good one.  I expected them to be neck and neck.  They weren't, not this past week anyhow.

Same disclaimer as the other naysayers -- I still like him, great prospect, he played well at times, lots of tools, etc.

As for the nonsense about a Superman cape and people not understanding how a powerplay works -- sorry, but that's where you're slipping into just being defensive and deflecting.  I think if you read what me, shupe, Crowls, and others are saying, you might realize that you're not responding to what is being said.  I think it is okay to expect Hamilton to be the one that might lead the powerplay, or lead the physical play against vastly smaller opponents, or maybe play "all-tournament team" caiber hockey.  It isn't really that threatening of a commentary.