I think a lot of how you feel about that US match is where you fall on the "finishing is real and it is important" / "you need to get into the right spots often enough and have variance go your way" sliding scale. If you're more of a finishing person, some of that finishing was alarming. If you're more of a variance person, you look at the missed penalty, the crossbar from Lavelle, and the number of pretty wide open moonshots and near misses and say "well that probably should've and could've been right on the 6 - 0 betting odds.
I wanted more goals to pad the differential, but it's a tournament and we got three points. Once we got the second goal such that we were "one single calamity" proof, it was all good to me. It's hard to generate awesome chances against a team that is effectively almost never trying to play soccer (seriously, 0 shots), and I think it's likely that the US attack looks a lot stronger against a NED team that doesn't just pack the box because they also want to attack. More opportunities where Smith only has to do two defenders and not five will be nice.