1st Half
Posted by jimmy
1st Half
Posted by: jimmy (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: December 05, 2005 04:20PM
Well my fellow lynah faithful, the first half of the season has come to a close. I, for one, was very disappointed with the level of play on the ice, but they did finish 8-3-1 which is very respectable. They are in a good position to make a run at the ECACHL and Ivy championships and still have a lot of room for improvement. This is basically a thread just to see what everybody thinks about the first semester of hockey for our Big Red this year.
Here are a few of the points I saw:
1. McCutcheon has become a very good player for us. He seems to always be the guy in the middle of all the big plays and is comfortable out there. To me, he's been the most impressive guy on the team so far.
2. McKee seems to be getting back into a little bit of a zone. After a weak start to the season, he seems to be hitting a groove going into the break. The defense in front of him is getting better and he's making some of the more difficult saves (if you don't count the soft one against Princeton). If he continues on this path, we may see a second semester that is similar to last year's incredible stretch.
3. The Freshmen are constantly improving. I'm becoming more impressed with the Freshmen every weekend. They were, as can be expected, hesitant at the start of the year but they seem to be turning it around.
4. The offense still needs to get better. McKee can hold the opponent to 0 or 1 goals all year long, but if the offense doesn't start to score a few a game, this team may be in trouble down the stretch.
5. Pokulok and Krantz need to get their heads in the game. They just seem to be out of it, and this team may not get where it can if these two do not get their acts together.
6. Just an observation: Is it just me, or are there more missed passes at Lynah this season than in the past? It just seems like a lot of these passes are missing sticks or jumping on their way. Is it bad ice, or lack on concentration amongst Cornell and our oponents?
7. And finally...why is Dave not wearing his costumes anymore? Anybody?
Anyway...good luck on finals and LET'S GO RED!!!!!!
Here are a few of the points I saw:
1. McCutcheon has become a very good player for us. He seems to always be the guy in the middle of all the big plays and is comfortable out there. To me, he's been the most impressive guy on the team so far.
2. McKee seems to be getting back into a little bit of a zone. After a weak start to the season, he seems to be hitting a groove going into the break. The defense in front of him is getting better and he's making some of the more difficult saves (if you don't count the soft one against Princeton). If he continues on this path, we may see a second semester that is similar to last year's incredible stretch.
3. The Freshmen are constantly improving. I'm becoming more impressed with the Freshmen every weekend. They were, as can be expected, hesitant at the start of the year but they seem to be turning it around.
4. The offense still needs to get better. McKee can hold the opponent to 0 or 1 goals all year long, but if the offense doesn't start to score a few a game, this team may be in trouble down the stretch.
5. Pokulok and Krantz need to get their heads in the game. They just seem to be out of it, and this team may not get where it can if these two do not get their acts together.
6. Just an observation: Is it just me, or are there more missed passes at Lynah this season than in the past? It just seems like a lot of these passes are missing sticks or jumping on their way. Is it bad ice, or lack on concentration amongst Cornell and our oponents?
7. And finally...why is Dave not wearing his costumes anymore? Anybody?
Anyway...good luck on finals and LET'S GO RED!!!!!!
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: imafrshmn (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: December 05, 2005 04:24PM
In response to #7, I talked to Dave after last Friday's game against Princeton, and he mentioned that there was some censorship going on.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: kaelistus (---.mak.com)
Date: December 05, 2005 04:48PM
Is this censorship the fault of CU Athletics, the ECACHL, or the NCAA?
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: RichH (---.chvlva.adelphia.net)
Date: December 05, 2005 04:57PM
Well, jimmy, your post seems to be a summation of what has been said in every post-game thread the past month.
I'll point out that through 8 ECAC games, we have 11 points. This matches Cornell's 8-game point total in '96, '01, '02, and '05. (Of course, CU had 12 points in '04) Through the Schafer era, this is very typical for this point in the season. I guess the big question is if this team performs after the holidays more like the '05 team or the '04 team. I can see them going either way, frankly.
[www.tbrw.info]
I'll point out that through 8 ECAC games, we have 11 points. This matches Cornell's 8-game point total in '96, '01, '02, and '05. (Of course, CU had 12 points in '04) Through the Schafer era, this is very typical for this point in the season. I guess the big question is if this team performs after the holidays more like the '05 team or the '04 team. I can see them going either way, frankly.
[www.tbrw.info]
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Robb (---.northgrum.com)
Date: December 05, 2005 05:02PM
8+3+1 = 12.
12/29 = 41.4%
I only point this out because we definitely need the time for improvement. We certainly have not realized our potential, and those exta few games before the stretch run could make a huge difference in how the season ends up. Technically, the season will be half over (14.5 games) at the 10:00 mark of the 2nd period of the RIT game. Following that game, we have the 7 ECAC weekends to finish the season.
Basically, I hope we can use the next 3 non-conference games to really tune up for the 2nd half run of ECAC games, and we hit the ground running at Quinnipiac on Jan 13.
12/29 = 41.4%
I only point this out because we definitely need the time for improvement. We certainly have not realized our potential, and those exta few games before the stretch run could make a huge difference in how the season ends up. Technically, the season will be half over (14.5 games) at the 10:00 mark of the 2nd period of the RIT game. Following that game, we have the 7 ECAC weekends to finish the season.
Basically, I hope we can use the next 3 non-conference games to really tune up for the 2nd half run of ECAC games, and we hit the ground running at Quinnipiac on Jan 13.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Ken '70 (---.254.51.209.conversent.net)
Date: December 05, 2005 05:05PM
Cornell is 8-3-1 in 12 games against teams that are a combined 68 - 81 ( I dropped the ties for simplicity). They've played only 3 games against teams with winning records (RPI, Union, Harvard) and are 1-1-1 against those with no home wins against winning teams.
They're looking "better" recently because they haven't played a team with a winning record in two weeks. Of course they're going to look better, but just barely beating Q, not being at all impressive v. Princeton and two squeakers against Niagara make it clear where this team is going this season.
The attack is without an iota of creativity and the defense is pedestrian. They'll be lucky to get a bye and I'd make them a bit less than 50-50 to make Albany. Forget the national picture, can you imagine what a North Dakota or Michigan would do to the Red not to mention Wisconsin or Miami (hard to believe, isn't it)?
Time to start thinking about next year, let's see if Schafer can adjust and get some fast skaters instead of the hulking defensemen. If anyone saw the first period or so of Harvard vs BU that was good hockey (on H's part). The boys from Cambridge still can't play a complete game like that but it's much more entertaining than the Red right now, and a lot more likely to yield a W against a good team (witness their win against BC).
They're looking "better" recently because they haven't played a team with a winning record in two weeks. Of course they're going to look better, but just barely beating Q, not being at all impressive v. Princeton and two squeakers against Niagara make it clear where this team is going this season.
The attack is without an iota of creativity and the defense is pedestrian. They'll be lucky to get a bye and I'd make them a bit less than 50-50 to make Albany. Forget the national picture, can you imagine what a North Dakota or Michigan would do to the Red not to mention Wisconsin or Miami (hard to believe, isn't it)?
Time to start thinking about next year, let's see if Schafer can adjust and get some fast skaters instead of the hulking defensemen. If anyone saw the first period or so of Harvard vs BU that was good hockey (on H's part). The boys from Cambridge still can't play a complete game like that but it's much more entertaining than the Red right now, and a lot more likely to yield a W against a good team (witness their win against BC).
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 05, 2005 05:16PM
[q]Time to start thinking about next year[/q]Oh come on. It's way too early to give up on this season. This team has plenty of talent and has an upside that is quite high. With the 8-3-1 record the team is in a position to have a very successful season if they can get it together.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: redhair34 (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: December 05, 2005 05:30PM
I'm not going to try to convice you otherwise about our team; you are entitled to your opinion. But, I agree with Keith's response.
[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
If anyone saw the first period or so of Harvard vs BU that was good hockey (on H's part). [/q]
Yes I did see that game. No doubt Harvard looked pretty good in the 1st period, but BU helped them look good. BU looked absolutely dreadful in the first two periods of that game. Their pp was about as effective as Princeton's. I still can't believe Harvard settled for a tie.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net)
Date: December 05, 2005 06:08PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Oh come on. It's way too early to give up on this season.[/q]
Agreed. I'm sorry, Ken '70, but I just looked back at some of your posts this year and others, and you come off as kind of a crank with a tendency towards snap judgments that are not borne out in the long term. I mean, calling for McKee and O'Byrne's heads in the Union game thread? Hmmm... taking those two out would be a recipe for long term success.
Rich is right above. Thinking back, I can see some strong similarities to other Cornell teams. I have a tendency to compare teams to my junior and senior year teams: '96 was a blistering team that had a motivation problem to overcome held over from the McCutcheon (coach) era, whereas '97 was steady but sure, maximizing every second on the ice with a little less talent. Take them or shove them, these are my analogies:
'98, '99 : Schafer :: '93 : McCutcheon
'94, '95 : '00, '01 :: limited potential : realization of limited potential
'04 : ? :: '78, '85 : ?
'96 : '03 :: '97 : '02, '05
So far this year, I think it's a motivation problem stemming from last year's disappointment and this year's departures. They'll get over it, I hope. '03 got over '02, '05 got over '04. But give me a team with potential anytime. My senior year was great, and they did what they could, but we knew we weren't going to the "Frozen Four."
P.S. There's another effect going on here as well--the strong/weak league effect. In '02 we were strong in a weak league, much like in '04. In '03 we were far-and-away dominant in a weak league. In '05, we seemed not-so-dominant in a strong league. The ECAC, this year, looks like it is a pretty strong league. The added bonus this year is a weak year in the WCHA (which, of course, means they'll only get 4 teams in the tournie) and, when compared to us, a weak year in HE. We might be surprised how well ECAC teams fare during the holidays and later on next year. We should all keep Clarkson and SLU in our best thoughts over the next couple of weeks. They both play Vermont and Miami and their results will go a much longer way than ours in Florida in determining NCAA seeding.
Oh come on. It's way too early to give up on this season.[/q]
Agreed. I'm sorry, Ken '70, but I just looked back at some of your posts this year and others, and you come off as kind of a crank with a tendency towards snap judgments that are not borne out in the long term. I mean, calling for McKee and O'Byrne's heads in the Union game thread? Hmmm... taking those two out would be a recipe for long term success.
Rich is right above. Thinking back, I can see some strong similarities to other Cornell teams. I have a tendency to compare teams to my junior and senior year teams: '96 was a blistering team that had a motivation problem to overcome held over from the McCutcheon (coach) era, whereas '97 was steady but sure, maximizing every second on the ice with a little less talent. Take them or shove them, these are my analogies:
'98, '99 : Schafer :: '93 : McCutcheon
'94, '95 : '00, '01 :: limited potential : realization of limited potential
'04 : ? :: '78, '85 : ?
'96 : '03 :: '97 : '02, '05
So far this year, I think it's a motivation problem stemming from last year's disappointment and this year's departures. They'll get over it, I hope. '03 got over '02, '05 got over '04. But give me a team with potential anytime. My senior year was great, and they did what they could, but we knew we weren't going to the "Frozen Four."
P.S. There's another effect going on here as well--the strong/weak league effect. In '02 we were strong in a weak league, much like in '04. In '03 we were far-and-away dominant in a weak league. In '05, we seemed not-so-dominant in a strong league. The ECAC, this year, looks like it is a pretty strong league. The added bonus this year is a weak year in the WCHA (which, of course, means they'll only get 4 teams in the tournie) and, when compared to us, a weak year in HE. We might be surprised how well ECAC teams fare during the holidays and later on next year. We should all keep Clarkson and SLU in our best thoughts over the next couple of weeks. They both play Vermont and Miami and their results will go a much longer way than ours in Florida in determining NCAA seeding.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Ken '70 (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: December 05, 2005 06:15PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Time to start thinking about next year[/Q]
Oh come on. It's way too early to give up on this season. 1. This team has plenty of talent and has an upside that is quite high. With the 8-3-1 record 2. the team is in a position to have a very successful season if they can get it together.[/q]
What facts do you base these two statements on, certainly not a 1-1-1 record against barely winning teams.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Dafatone (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: December 05, 2005 06:25PM
We beat Harvard, didn't we? So maybe we're not looking great at this point, but that doesn't mean we can't improve.
A bad start doesn't mean it's time to give up.
A bad start doesn't mean it's time to give up.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Ken '70 (---.hsd1.ma.comcast.net)
Date: December 05, 2005 07:22PM
[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
Ken '70, but I just looked back at some of your posts this year and others, and you come off as kind of a crank [/q]
Let's review: I started my post out with a simple data analysis of our record and the quality of teams we had played and beaten. I then made two qualitative statements I haven't seen anyone yet disagree with: the offense lacks creativity and the defense is average. I conclude from this that we'll be lucky to make an impact in the ECAC let alone challenge the Wisconsins and NoDaks.
You respond in your first sentence, before any facts are brought to bear, with a personal attack. You don't like my conclusions and instead of countering them with data or logic, you start calling names.
Grow up, stop being lazy, don't rely on name calling, and learn to support your positions based on facts (or be open minded enough to change a position if the facts can't be mustered). It'll be a tough go for you, but if you ever get there it will be worth it.
Ken '70, but I just looked back at some of your posts this year and others, and you come off as kind of a crank [/q]
Let's review: I started my post out with a simple data analysis of our record and the quality of teams we had played and beaten. I then made two qualitative statements I haven't seen anyone yet disagree with: the offense lacks creativity and the defense is average. I conclude from this that we'll be lucky to make an impact in the ECAC let alone challenge the Wisconsins and NoDaks.
You respond in your first sentence, before any facts are brought to bear, with a personal attack. You don't like my conclusions and instead of countering them with data or logic, you start calling names.
Grow up, stop being lazy, don't rely on name calling, and learn to support your positions based on facts (or be open minded enough to change a position if the facts can't be mustered). It'll be a tough go for you, but if you ever get there it will be worth it.
Re: 1st Half: ECAC(HL) Team Size
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)
Date: December 05, 2005 08:08PM
has it occurred to anyone else that we might be seeing a shift in Coach's style of play/player size? i know it’s been mentioned here before but it seems that more and more teams in the league have started to play "big" and recruit to match our size. does anyone buy the "getting smaller and faster pitch?"
i think this could be significant in that Coach may have realized to be successful at the highest level, we need to tweak our size and style to be consistently competitive on the national level. might the Big Red be getting smaller, faster, and more skilled? is this a product of our success or am I just wasting time on monday evening. totally random monday evening thoughts, carry on.
Current Incoming Team Averages Height Weight Recruit (# of) Height Weight Dartmouth 6' 0.8" 189 (8) 6’ 0.5†178 Brown 6' 0.6" 192 (8) 6’ 1†186 Cornell 6' 0.6" 192 (6) 5’ 11†178 Colgate 6' 0.5" 194 (2) 5’ 10†178 Harvard 6' 0.5" 191 (3) 6’ 0†178 Yale 6' 0.4" 196 (3) 5’ 10†175 RPI 6' 0.1" 191 (5) 5’ 11†182 Clarkson 6' 0.1" 190 (2) 6’ 2†212 Princeton 6' 0.1" 190 (7) 6’ 0†183 QU 6' 0.0" 182 (5) 6’ 0.6†195 SLU(t) 5' 11.8" 185 (4) 5’ 11†174 Union 5' 9.1" 183 (7) 6’ 0†182 [www.uscho.com] [members.aol.com]
i think this could be significant in that Coach may have realized to be successful at the highest level, we need to tweak our size and style to be consistently competitive on the national level. might the Big Red be getting smaller, faster, and more skilled? is this a product of our success or am I just wasting time on monday evening. totally random monday evening thoughts, carry on.
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2005 08:54PM by ben03.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 05, 2005 08:30PM
[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
KeithK Wrote:
Time to start thinking about next year[/Q]
Oh come on. It's way too early to give up on this season. 1. This team has plenty of talent and has an upside that is quite high. With the 8-3-1 record 2. the team is in a position to have a very successful season if they can get it together.[/Q]
What facts do you base these two statements on, certainly not a 1-1-1 record against barely winning teams. [/q]1) The team has nine NHL draft picks. An imperfect metric, of course, but still indiicative of talent. The team has two returning All-Americans (McKee 1st team, Moulson 2nd team). This demonstrates high level performance at the college level. From watching and listening to this team play over the past several years I have little reason to doubt that there is talent on the roster.
2) Upside: The team returns a significant portion of the roster from a team that was one overtime goal away from the FF. As above, I feel they have on-paper talent. They have played well in spurts so far this season. The coach runs a system that has been able to generate dominating defensive teams. Altogether I believe this indicates a team that has potential to compete at a high level again this season. National champion contender? Who knows? (although the team certainly set that as a goal for itself).
Last year's team had an early season stretch where we went 0-3-1 against teams that finished over .500. That didn't prevent them from playing deep into March.
3) A record of 8-3-1 after 12 games is a good record. It's better than a .700 winning percentage. This means the team has not severely damaged themselves in the standings by playing relatively poorly over the first six weeks of the season. So they're in position to make a run if they play better in the spring semester.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that everything is rosy. There are problems. The team isn't showing the consistent intensity that is needed to win night in and night out. There are defensive and offensive issues, the powerplay has lost a lot of effectiveness and the goaltending hasn't been up to its usual standards. If this continues it could very well be a very mediocre season. But it's not worth giving up on yet - there's a lot of hockey to be played.
Besides, even a mediocre year of Cornell hockey would still be worth watching/following...
Re: 1st Half: ECAC(HL) Team Size
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 05, 2005 08:33PM
The same thought had occurred to me and I've discussed it privately with other folks on this board. This might be impacting our current performance. But we still have plenty of size on the current roster. If those guys aren't hitting and grinding in the corners it's not just because they're smaller.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 05, 2005 08:49PM
Ken, I obviously disagree with your conclusion, but you're right that the sniping was uncalled for. Don't take it too seriously though - you just suggested that diehard Big Red fans should give up on their team in December. Over reaction is not unexpected.
[q]he offense lacks creativity and the defense is average.[/q]I agree that the defense has been average. From my vantage point this seems to be more a question of energy and work ethic than problems with the on-ice talent or system. These problems can and hopefully will be addressed.
Offense is a problem that is harder to deal with, as anyone who's followed Cornell hockey for more than a couple years knows all too well. Schafer is shuffling lines trying to find combinations that will work well, but so far hasn't found the right combination - or at least none of the combinations has really stood out yet. We don't seem to be playing the cycling style well as in recent years. We've been struggling to get the puck into the zone and when you're not coming up with the puck in the corners consistently dumping the puck in isn't very effective. I don't think the scoring problem has to be solved with creativity necessarily.
The powerplay is struggling. The problem (to me) is the tendency to rely on a single play - the shot from the point. I don't even think you need to much creativity here. But I think you do need another option probably in closer that will open up the options better.
Like I said on a previous post - things are not all rosy. But while you conclude that we should look to next year I conclude that can still have a very successful season. I'm sure you'd be happy to be proved wrong.
[q]he offense lacks creativity and the defense is average.[/q]I agree that the defense has been average. From my vantage point this seems to be more a question of energy and work ethic than problems with the on-ice talent or system. These problems can and hopefully will be addressed.
Offense is a problem that is harder to deal with, as anyone who's followed Cornell hockey for more than a couple years knows all too well. Schafer is shuffling lines trying to find combinations that will work well, but so far hasn't found the right combination - or at least none of the combinations has really stood out yet. We don't seem to be playing the cycling style well as in recent years. We've been struggling to get the puck into the zone and when you're not coming up with the puck in the corners consistently dumping the puck in isn't very effective. I don't think the scoring problem has to be solved with creativity necessarily.
The powerplay is struggling. The problem (to me) is the tendency to rely on a single play - the shot from the point. I don't even think you need to much creativity here. But I think you do need another option probably in closer that will open up the options better.
Like I said on a previous post - things are not all rosy. But while you conclude that we should look to next year I conclude that can still have a very successful season. I'm sure you'd be happy to be proved wrong.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: December 05, 2005 08:54PM
I think it's too early to give up on the season, but not too early to be worried that this team will not come close to living up to its expectations. It's clear that the team that I saw eke out a win over Quinnipiac on Saturday would be very fortunate to make the NCAA tournament with that level of play. It remains to be seen whether or not they can turn it around in the 2nd half, as they do have the talent on paper.
Checking the ECAC standings in winning % order, it's interesting to note that we have played every team below us (we are tied for 3rd), but none of the top 3 teams. After getting a #2 seed and having to play a road game in spite of such an amazing run down the stretch last year, I have wondered whether motivation has been an issue especially playing so many weak teams early in the season. I'm hoping our level of play will rise as the stakes do with the Everblades tourney, which will have a big impact on the final PWR standings, and the huge games against Colgate and the North Country teams.
Checking the ECAC standings in winning % order, it's interesting to note that we have played every team below us (we are tied for 3rd), but none of the top 3 teams. After getting a #2 seed and having to play a road game in spite of such an amazing run down the stretch last year, I have wondered whether motivation has been an issue especially playing so many weak teams early in the season. I'm hoping our level of play will rise as the stakes do with the Everblades tourney, which will have a big impact on the final PWR standings, and the huge games against Colgate and the North Country teams.
Re: 1st Half: ECAC(HL) Team Size
Posted by: Drew (---.dyn.optonline.net)
Date: December 05, 2005 09:30PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
The same thought had occurred to me and I've discussed it privately with other folks on this board. This might be impacting our current performance. But we still have plenty of size on the current roster. If those guys aren't hitting and grinding in the corners it's not just because they're smaller.[/q]
Interesting, I was thinking Clarkson Hockey had changed as well. Morris' teams of past, physically wore down the opposition, grind it out, force the others into mistakes, capitalize on mistakes. I have watched Clarkson once this year vs. yale, Roll's team seemed substantially smaller, but faster and much more skilled....I wonder if this is a trend to follow. IMO
The same thought had occurred to me and I've discussed it privately with other folks on this board. This might be impacting our current performance. But we still have plenty of size on the current roster. If those guys aren't hitting and grinding in the corners it's not just because they're smaller.[/q]
Interesting, I was thinking Clarkson Hockey had changed as well. Morris' teams of past, physically wore down the opposition, grind it out, force the others into mistakes, capitalize on mistakes. I have watched Clarkson once this year vs. yale, Roll's team seemed substantially smaller, but faster and much more skilled....I wonder if this is a trend to follow. IMO
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/05/2005 10:20PM by Drew.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Trotsky (---.frdrmd.adelphia.net)
Date: December 05, 2005 11:17PM
Call me crazy, (pause), but I liked what I saw this past weekend. Yeah, it's tempting to harp on not blowing out two "weak" teams, but (1) neither did Colgate, and (2) although Princeton was indeed horrible, QU is IMHO a good squad with a lot of heart -- possibly a .500 team when all is said and done.
Look over the results from last season: 1-goal wins against such powerhouses as Union, Vermont, and St. Lawrence (twice!). The all-everything 2003 squad managed to eek out 1-goal wins against both North Country teams, RPI (twice), Princeton, and that renowned Western Michigan that barely missed the national championship on its way to 21 losses.
A win's a win. By all means, bitch after a 1-point home weekend against the Cap District, but after a 4-game winning streak, there's just not a lot to complain about.
Look over the results from last season: 1-goal wins against such powerhouses as Union, Vermont, and St. Lawrence (twice!). The all-everything 2003 squad managed to eek out 1-goal wins against both North Country teams, RPI (twice), Princeton, and that renowned Western Michigan that barely missed the national championship on its way to 21 losses.
A win's a win. By all means, bitch after a 1-point home weekend against the Cap District, but after a 4-game winning streak, there's just not a lot to complain about.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: MB (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: December 06, 2005 01:00AM
I too liked what I saw this weekend, especially our game against Q. Those guys were amazingly fast, and all over the ice, yet somehow we were able to keep them at bay.
We weren't always "bad" this season-- our games against Mich State were some of the best hockey I've seen. The team and the talent are there, and I think they're coming back, ever so slowly. (Why they left, I don't know...)
We weren't always "bad" this season-- our games against Mich State were some of the best hockey I've seen. The team and the talent are there, and I think they're coming back, ever so slowly. (Why they left, I don't know...)
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Scersk '97 (---.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net)
Date: December 06, 2005 01:50AM
[Q]Ken '70 Wrote:
You respond in your first sentence, before any facts are brought to bear, with a personal attack. You don't like my conclusions and instead of countering them with data or logic, you start calling names.
[/q]
Though I'm risking getting a graphic from Hayes, I'm your huckleberry.
Though I didn't cite and footnote, I did bring facts to bear: your previous postings on this forum. Your postings in the Union game thread were a bunch of whines about how something needed to be done about who was playing in the game. We only lost 2-1; it wasn't Dartmouth the week before. It seemed, well, like the ravings of someone who might "come off as [being] kind of a crank." Notice, I said "kind of." Are you a crank? No. Are you cranky? Perhaps. (Really, can we all stop calling for O'Byrne's head on this forum? The guy's a good player, one of the best on the team so far this year. What games are you watching?) Was it a snipe? Yes. Was it unwarranted? I don't think so.
Now you made me look back more closely at your posts prior to that, and, though I don't find your posts especially cranky except with regards to political topics, I now know what cheeses me off about your calls to "analysis," and this is it:
[Q]
Grow up, stop being lazy, don't rely on name calling, and learn to support your positions based on facts (or be open minded enough to change a position if the facts can't be mustered). It'll be a tough go for you, but if you ever get there it will be worth it.
[/q]
Your "facts" are the incredibly in-depth analysis that pits our win/loss record against our opponents win/loss records. I mean, talk about lazy. Anyone who ever reads my posts on this forum knows that I usually back up my most casual statements with more effort than you've put out. But, then again, you probably haven't agreed with my previous analyses since you've shown that you mistrust some very well-established tools for analysis.
We were all involved in a lengthy discussion about KRACH vs. PWR last year, and it turns out you're one of those people that prefers PWR to KRACH. You've said that you like how PWR reflects "reality" and that KRACH shows "unrealities," or whatever. (There was a moment of high comedy when you were "schooling" Whelan... right.) So, if I felt like putting in the work, I could go back and show you where my "feelings" about this year's team are coming from, since I'm essentially going back and looking at old KRACHs and records and making my own judgment calls. Typing all that process out would be time consuming, so I made the analogies and left it there.
Which brings me to my point: Why should I have to back up everything that I say with absolute pedantry when 1) I have a reputation for good analysis, 2) you wouldn't believe my analysis when presented, and 3) you haven't done any legwork yourself beyond taking a look at the RPI and picking out the relevant numbers?
Don't call me lazy without putting in some work yourself.
You respond in your first sentence, before any facts are brought to bear, with a personal attack. You don't like my conclusions and instead of countering them with data or logic, you start calling names.
[/q]
Though I'm risking getting a graphic from Hayes, I'm your huckleberry.
Though I didn't cite and footnote, I did bring facts to bear: your previous postings on this forum. Your postings in the Union game thread were a bunch of whines about how something needed to be done about who was playing in the game. We only lost 2-1; it wasn't Dartmouth the week before. It seemed, well, like the ravings of someone who might "come off as [being] kind of a crank." Notice, I said "kind of." Are you a crank? No. Are you cranky? Perhaps. (Really, can we all stop calling for O'Byrne's head on this forum? The guy's a good player, one of the best on the team so far this year. What games are you watching?) Was it a snipe? Yes. Was it unwarranted? I don't think so.
Now you made me look back more closely at your posts prior to that, and, though I don't find your posts especially cranky except with regards to political topics, I now know what cheeses me off about your calls to "analysis," and this is it:
[Q]
Grow up, stop being lazy, don't rely on name calling, and learn to support your positions based on facts (or be open minded enough to change a position if the facts can't be mustered). It'll be a tough go for you, but if you ever get there it will be worth it.
[/q]
Your "facts" are the incredibly in-depth analysis that pits our win/loss record against our opponents win/loss records. I mean, talk about lazy. Anyone who ever reads my posts on this forum knows that I usually back up my most casual statements with more effort than you've put out. But, then again, you probably haven't agreed with my previous analyses since you've shown that you mistrust some very well-established tools for analysis.
We were all involved in a lengthy discussion about KRACH vs. PWR last year, and it turns out you're one of those people that prefers PWR to KRACH. You've said that you like how PWR reflects "reality" and that KRACH shows "unrealities," or whatever. (There was a moment of high comedy when you were "schooling" Whelan... right.) So, if I felt like putting in the work, I could go back and show you where my "feelings" about this year's team are coming from, since I'm essentially going back and looking at old KRACHs and records and making my own judgment calls. Typing all that process out would be time consuming, so I made the analogies and left it there.
Which brings me to my point: Why should I have to back up everything that I say with absolute pedantry when 1) I have a reputation for good analysis, 2) you wouldn't believe my analysis when presented, and 3) you haven't done any legwork yourself beyond taking a look at the RPI and picking out the relevant numbers?
Don't call me lazy without putting in some work yourself.
Re: 1st Half: ECAC(HL) Team Size
Posted by: Lauren '06 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: December 06, 2005 02:18AM
[Q]ben03 Wrote:
has it occurred to anyone else that we might be seeing a shift in Coach's style of play/player size? i know it’s been mentioned here before but it seems that more and more teams in the league have started to play "big" and recruit to match our size. does anyone buy the "getting smaller and faster pitch?"[/q]
I think this is the feeling I've been having the past few weeks. This Cornell team seems to be trying to make the transition from Cornell-style outwork, outdefend hockey to WCHA-style (and new NHL style) outscore hockey, but is experiencing dreadful growing pains in the process. I don't know whether this is by design or just how the trend looks, but I feel this is evidenced by our many come from behind/come from ties wins.
I'm not quite sure how McKee and his play fits into this theory, except that perhaps they expected him to be more stellar than he is right now.
has it occurred to anyone else that we might be seeing a shift in Coach's style of play/player size? i know it’s been mentioned here before but it seems that more and more teams in the league have started to play "big" and recruit to match our size. does anyone buy the "getting smaller and faster pitch?"[/q]
I think this is the feeling I've been having the past few weeks. This Cornell team seems to be trying to make the transition from Cornell-style outwork, outdefend hockey to WCHA-style (and new NHL style) outscore hockey, but is experiencing dreadful growing pains in the process. I don't know whether this is by design or just how the trend looks, but I feel this is evidenced by our many come from behind/come from ties wins.
I'm not quite sure how McKee and his play fits into this theory, except that perhaps they expected him to be more stellar than he is right now.
Re: 1st Half: ECAC(HL) Team Size
Posted by: RichH (---.chvlva.adelphia.net)
Date: December 06, 2005 02:41AM
[Q]Drew Wrote:
Interesting, I was thinking Clarkson Hockey had changed as well. Morris' teams of past, physically wore down the opposition, grind it out, force the others into mistakes, capitalize on mistakes. I have watched Clarkson once this year vs. yale, Roll's team seemed substantially smaller, but faster and much more skilled....I wonder if this is a trend to follow. IMO[/q]
Hmm. Interesting perspective, Drew. You obviously have a much more intense following of Clarkson than most of us here, so I'll defer to your judgement, but I remember having discussions with CCT fans 10 years ago over on the old Golden Knight Roundtable. The popular saying whenever Cornell and Clarkson got together was "flash and dash will beat crash and bash!" The successful Clarkson teams of the early-to-mid-90s certainly had a LOT of speedy guys. That Marko Tuomainen - Patrice Robitaille combination gave me fits. The prototypical Morris guys (in my mind, anyway) were Todd Marchant, Todd White, and Eric Cole...fast, darty players with sick puck-handling skills.
Marchant: 5' 10" 175
White: 5' 10" 181
Cole: 6' 1" 185
Even the great grinder, JF Houle was 5' 9" (and played much bigger). The first really BIG Clarkson player I remember was Willie Mitchell (6' 3" 205)...I'm sure there were other big guys (Bartell), but in terms of impact in this opposing fans mind...Mitchell was huge.
When Coach Schafer set up his recruiting system, it took a few years, but all of a sudden, you started seeing players that were *substantially* bigger than the competition. Sacchetti, Bâby, Murray. When we went to Kalamazoo in '02-'03, we talked to some WMU fans who asked us if we brought our football team. Given the success of those teams leading up to the 2003 season, I think that the "recruit trees" strategy effected the way the ECAC as a whole went about recruiting, and the type of players that have been brought into the league.
That said, nobody towered over opponents like Joel Prpic did for SLU.
Interesting, I was thinking Clarkson Hockey had changed as well. Morris' teams of past, physically wore down the opposition, grind it out, force the others into mistakes, capitalize on mistakes. I have watched Clarkson once this year vs. yale, Roll's team seemed substantially smaller, but faster and much more skilled....I wonder if this is a trend to follow. IMO[/q]
Hmm. Interesting perspective, Drew. You obviously have a much more intense following of Clarkson than most of us here, so I'll defer to your judgement, but I remember having discussions with CCT fans 10 years ago over on the old Golden Knight Roundtable. The popular saying whenever Cornell and Clarkson got together was "flash and dash will beat crash and bash!" The successful Clarkson teams of the early-to-mid-90s certainly had a LOT of speedy guys. That Marko Tuomainen - Patrice Robitaille combination gave me fits. The prototypical Morris guys (in my mind, anyway) were Todd Marchant, Todd White, and Eric Cole...fast, darty players with sick puck-handling skills.
Marchant: 5' 10" 175
White: 5' 10" 181
Cole: 6' 1" 185
Even the great grinder, JF Houle was 5' 9" (and played much bigger). The first really BIG Clarkson player I remember was Willie Mitchell (6' 3" 205)...I'm sure there were other big guys (Bartell), but in terms of impact in this opposing fans mind...Mitchell was huge.
When Coach Schafer set up his recruiting system, it took a few years, but all of a sudden, you started seeing players that were *substantially* bigger than the competition. Sacchetti, Bâby, Murray. When we went to Kalamazoo in '02-'03, we talked to some WMU fans who asked us if we brought our football team. Given the success of those teams leading up to the 2003 season, I think that the "recruit trees" strategy effected the way the ECAC as a whole went about recruiting, and the type of players that have been brought into the league.
That said, nobody towered over opponents like Joel Prpic did for SLU.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2005 02:58AM by RichH.
Re: 1st Half: ECAC(HL) Team Size
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)
Date: December 06, 2005 02:57AM
so after taking a look at the size of the league teams for this season, i thought it might be interesting to see what (if any) actual trend has been happening
since the 1999-2000 season (oldest archived data). has the league gotten bigger and bigger? yes. does bigger win titles? you decide.
since the 1999-2000 season (oldest archived data). has the league gotten bigger and bigger? yes. does bigger win titles? you decide.
Year Team Height Weight Record Winning % 2004-05 Cornell(RS) 6’1.3†195 27-5-3 .814% 2004-05 Cornell(TC) 6’1.3†195 27-5-3 .814% 2003-04 Colgate(RS) 5’11.9†198 22-12-5 .662% 2003-04 Harvard(TC) 6’1.0†197 18-15-3 .542% 2002-03 Cornell(RS) 6’0.6†194 30-5-1 .847% 2002-03 Cornell(TC) 6’0.6†194 30-5-1 .847% 2001-02 Cornell(RS) 6’0.7†193 25-8-2 .743% 2001-02 Harvard(TC) 6’0.5†194 15-15-4 .500% 2000-01 Clarkson(RS) 6’0.4†187 21-11-3 .662% 2000-01 St. Lawrence(TC) 6’0.3†193 20-13-4 .595% 1999-00 St. Lawrence(RS) 6’0.0†187 27-8-2 .757% 1999-00 St. Lawrence(TC) 6’0.0†187 27-8-2 .757% RS – Reg. Season Champion TC – Tournament Champion... and can stop talking about due diligence now???
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2005 01:22PM by ben03.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: redhair34 (---.resnet.cornell.edu)
Date: December 06, 2005 10:40AM
[Q]Scersk '97 Wrote:
Anyone who ever reads my posts on this forum knows that I usually back up my most casual statements with more effort than you've put out. [/q]
Yes you do...
[elf.elynah.com]
Anyone who ever reads my posts on this forum knows that I usually back up my most casual statements with more effort than you've put out. [/q]
Yes you do...
[elf.elynah.com]
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: schoaff (---.ga.at.cox.net)
Date: December 06, 2005 10:48AM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
The powerplay is struggling. The problem (to me) is the tendency to rely on a single play - the shot from the point. I don't even think you need to much creativity here. But I think you do need another option probably in closer that will open up the options better.
[/q]
It seemed to me that Q in particular was giving us the shot from the point and wasn't particularly worried about it. Whenever Moulson got the puck at the top of the circle he was trying to move in before taking the shot giving Q time to set up for it. I wonder if the player they miss the most from last year is Charlie Cook?
As for reasons for optimism this season, I've only seen 20 seasons of College hockey now which is far fewer than Ken's name would indicate, but it's been the norm and not the exception for Cornell to really step up their play after the break. I assume it's just a matter of having time to catch up to the non-Ivy schools practice wise.
The powerplay is struggling. The problem (to me) is the tendency to rely on a single play - the shot from the point. I don't even think you need to much creativity here. But I think you do need another option probably in closer that will open up the options better.
[/q]
It seemed to me that Q in particular was giving us the shot from the point and wasn't particularly worried about it. Whenever Moulson got the puck at the top of the circle he was trying to move in before taking the shot giving Q time to set up for it. I wonder if the player they miss the most from last year is Charlie Cook?
As for reasons for optimism this season, I've only seen 20 seasons of College hockey now which is far fewer than Ken's name would indicate, but it's been the norm and not the exception for Cornell to really step up their play after the break. I assume it's just a matter of having time to catch up to the non-Ivy schools practice wise.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.net)
Date: December 06, 2005 12:19PM
[Q]schoaff Wrote:
As for reasons for optimism this season, I've only seen 20 seasons of College hockey now which is far fewer than Ken's name would indicate, but it's been the norm and not the exception for Cornell to really step up their play after the break. I assume it's just a matter of having time to catch up to the non-Ivy schools practice wise.[/q]I'm inclined to say (although I don't have time to do the kind of research Scersk does to back up his statements) that this is especially a hallmark of the Schafer years (which coincide precisely with my time watching college hockey). To me, improving as the year goes on suggests that a coach is making good adjustments (line combinations, who plays in what game situations, and the like), and so I think Schafer has demonstrated in the past that he knows the right buttons to push. As has been pointed out already, last year's team had some rough early stretches, and was 8-3-2 after the Florida trip and 5-2-1 after 8 conference games. This year's team is 8-3-1 before the Florida trip and 5-2-1 after 8 conference games. So I guess the point I'm moving towards in a roundabout way is, while there may be areas that could stand to be improved (and if we recognize this, you can be SURE that Schafer does too), there isn't cause to be overly concerned. Last year's team turned out fine after some rough spots early, and I think this year's team will too.
As for reasons for optimism this season, I've only seen 20 seasons of College hockey now which is far fewer than Ken's name would indicate, but it's been the norm and not the exception for Cornell to really step up their play after the break. I assume it's just a matter of having time to catch up to the non-Ivy schools practice wise.[/q]I'm inclined to say (although I don't have time to do the kind of research Scersk does to back up his statements) that this is especially a hallmark of the Schafer years (which coincide precisely with my time watching college hockey). To me, improving as the year goes on suggests that a coach is making good adjustments (line combinations, who plays in what game situations, and the like), and so I think Schafer has demonstrated in the past that he knows the right buttons to push. As has been pointed out already, last year's team had some rough early stretches, and was 8-3-2 after the Florida trip and 5-2-1 after 8 conference games. This year's team is 8-3-1 before the Florida trip and 5-2-1 after 8 conference games. So I guess the point I'm moving towards in a roundabout way is, while there may be areas that could stand to be improved (and if we recognize this, you can be SURE that Schafer does too), there isn't cause to be overly concerned. Last year's team turned out fine after some rough spots early, and I think this year's team will too.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Robb (---.northgrum.com)
Date: December 06, 2005 01:00PM
There are a couple of differences that lead to the perception that this year's team is markedly "worse" than last year's team despite similar W-L records at this point. (note: I'm not saying that we're NOT worse - time will tell - but there certainly is a perception that we are worse).
Last year, we were 0-1-1 after the opening weekend and things generally got better from there. This year, we started out 1-1 against a team projected to be in the top 10 (remember those days?), so expectations were higher. Last year, we didn't get blown out 6-1 in any of our 3 early losses. Last year, we didn't blow 2 goal leads on consecutive nights to the same non-conference team. Last year, we didn't need late goals to beat Harvard or an ECAC team that was picked at the bottom of the league. Last year, our GF-GA was significantly better at this point in the season, and Dave's GAA and Sv Pct were already ridiculous. Yes, we do have the same record; we've earned that record, but we have definitely been scraping by by a lot closer margins this year.
Last year, we were 0-1-1 after the opening weekend and things generally got better from there. This year, we started out 1-1 against a team projected to be in the top 10 (remember those days?), so expectations were higher. Last year, we didn't get blown out 6-1 in any of our 3 early losses. Last year, we didn't blow 2 goal leads on consecutive nights to the same non-conference team. Last year, we didn't need late goals to beat Harvard or an ECAC team that was picked at the bottom of the league. Last year, our GF-GA was significantly better at this point in the season, and Dave's GAA and Sv Pct were already ridiculous. Yes, we do have the same record; we've earned that record, but we have definitely been scraping by by a lot closer margins this year.
Re: 1st Half: ECAC(HL) Team Size
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: December 06, 2005 01:28PM
Don't forget that might just reflect height/weight inflation more than actual size. Hell, Vesce's numbers alone probably skew the whole thing significantly 
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: 1st Half: ECAC(HL) Team Size
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)
Date: December 06, 2005 01:58PM
okay late one and i'll quit, i promise.
my guess is the adjustments we’re seeing (aka the minor downward trend) are in part due to our recent success and subsequent ability to get more of the smaller, faster and more skilled recruits. i don’t think we’ll see the abolishment of “the big man†on a CU roster while Schafer is the coach. rather i’ll bet some tweaking is in the works to better compete nationally. i think when all’s said and done, we’ll end up looking like something between Denver (6’0.8â€/ 189) and NoDak (5’11.9â€/ 186) in both size and style. something tells me i think we can all live with that
Year Height Weight Record Winning % 2006-07 6’0.4†188 TBD -- 2005-06 6'0.6" 192 TBD -- 2004-05 6’1.3†195 27-5-3 .814% 2003-04 6’1.0’ 194 16-10-6 .594% 2002-03 6’0.6†194 30-5-1 .847% 2001-02 6’0.7†193 25-8-2 .743% 2000-01 6’0.3†193 16-12-5 .561% 1999-00 6’0.8†193 16-14-2 .531%
my guess is the adjustments we’re seeing (aka the minor downward trend) are in part due to our recent success and subsequent ability to get more of the smaller, faster and more skilled recruits. i don’t think we’ll see the abolishment of “the big man†on a CU roster while Schafer is the coach. rather i’ll bet some tweaking is in the works to better compete nationally. i think when all’s said and done, we’ll end up looking like something between Denver (6’0.8â€/ 189) and NoDak (5’11.9â€/ 186) in both size and style. something tells me i think we can all live with that
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Steve M (---.fluor.com)
Date: December 06, 2005 03:36PM
[Q]Robb Wrote:
There are a couple of differences that lead to the perception that this year's team is markedly "worse" than last year's team despite similar W-L records at this point. (note: I'm not saying that we're NOT worse - time will tell - but there certainly is a perception that we are worse).
Last year, we didn't get blown out 6-1 in any of our 3 early losses. Last year, we didn't blow 2 goal leads on consecutive nights to the same non-conference team. Last year, we didn't need late goals to beat Harvard or an ECAC team that was picked at the bottom of the league. Last year, our GF-GA was significantly better at this point in the season, and Dave's GAA and Sv Pct were already ridiculous. Yes, we do have the same record; we've earned that record, but we have definitely been scraping by by a lot closer margins this year.[/q]
Good points. Our CHODR (which takes margin of victory into account) ranking is around 30 this year. At this time last year we were in the Top 5 in CHODR IIRC. Also both losses and both ties were on the road, and they were all against NCAA tournament contenders.
The silver lining, as I see it, is that the team's record is still very good even though the level of play hasn't met expectations (at least not mine). So if the Red do start playing as well as expected, we may be in for another great 2nd half.
There are a couple of differences that lead to the perception that this year's team is markedly "worse" than last year's team despite similar W-L records at this point. (note: I'm not saying that we're NOT worse - time will tell - but there certainly is a perception that we are worse).
Last year, we didn't get blown out 6-1 in any of our 3 early losses. Last year, we didn't blow 2 goal leads on consecutive nights to the same non-conference team. Last year, we didn't need late goals to beat Harvard or an ECAC team that was picked at the bottom of the league. Last year, our GF-GA was significantly better at this point in the season, and Dave's GAA and Sv Pct were already ridiculous. Yes, we do have the same record; we've earned that record, but we have definitely been scraping by by a lot closer margins this year.[/q]
Good points. Our CHODR (which takes margin of victory into account) ranking is around 30 this year. At this time last year we were in the Top 5 in CHODR IIRC. Also both losses and both ties were on the road, and they were all against NCAA tournament contenders.
The silver lining, as I see it, is that the team's record is still very good even though the level of play hasn't met expectations (at least not mine). So if the Red do start playing as well as expected, we may be in for another great 2nd half.
Re: 1st Half: ECAC(HL) Team Size
Posted by: Josh '99 (---.yw.yu.edu)
Date: December 06, 2005 03:47PM
[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
Don't forget that might just reflect height/weight inflation...[/q]Wouldn't that just apply to Harvard?![B-]](http://elf.elynah.com/smileys/11.gif "B-]")
Don't forget that might just reflect height/weight inflation...[/q]Wouldn't that just apply to Harvard?
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Cactus12 (---.twcny.res.rr.com)
Date: December 06, 2005 04:09PM
Something that hasn't really been mentioned so far is the character/ leadership of this team. I think that was the biggest loss from last year. Knoepfli and Iggulden for example... they were certainly talented but you wouldn't call them stars... but there's definitely something to be said for being able to play heads-up, consistent hockey for 60 minutes. I think winter break may really give this team time to settle in. If you get rid of the careless mistakes on defense, and confusion on the PP (leading to passing back and forth at the blue line), and play consistent hockey, this team has a lot of potential even for this season. Carefoot is a skater whose play I think could really set an example for the team. And if Gleed (where is he by the way?) could get into a groove, it could do wonders for the defense.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: December 06, 2005 04:11PM
If Mike Schafer is truly one of the country's best teaching coaches (as opposed to recruiting, or alumni-pleasing), then the coach is a bigger part of the equation. What he's teaching sinks in over time, especially to new players, so the results become more apparent later in the season.
Maybe we are transitioning to an NHL/WCHA style of hockey that looks more to scoring than defense. But I can't see the trend ever going away from bigger players at any school. I could see teams trying to get more scoring and more offense from bigger guys. Eg, Shaq on ice. If a Topher Scott comes along, you take him, because not everyone has to be a gorilla.
Could it be Cornell still wants to be a defensive-minded team and is having trouble doing it?
Still, even if Cornell is a second half team, what happened the first dozen games was disappointing:
- Offense under 2 goals per game excluding power play and man-short (20 goals in 12 games)
- Power play not what it was in previous years
- Penalty kill good not world class
- Lots of off nights in the nets, or unlucky nights
- Advantage-in-shots margins in excess of advantage in goals margins
- Every victory except one by 1 goal, excluding ENG game-sealers
The Florida Classic could help turn things around. Too bad Pokoluk will be at the world junior tournament instead. Even if some people are down on him, he's still a player you want to have playing. Two wins there, agains non-ECAC competition, could be crucial.
Maybe we are transitioning to an NHL/WCHA style of hockey that looks more to scoring than defense. But I can't see the trend ever going away from bigger players at any school. I could see teams trying to get more scoring and more offense from bigger guys. Eg, Shaq on ice. If a Topher Scott comes along, you take him, because not everyone has to be a gorilla.
Could it be Cornell still wants to be a defensive-minded team and is having trouble doing it?
Still, even if Cornell is a second half team, what happened the first dozen games was disappointing:
- Offense under 2 goals per game excluding power play and man-short (20 goals in 12 games)
- Power play not what it was in previous years
- Penalty kill good not world class
- Lots of off nights in the nets, or unlucky nights
- Advantage-in-shots margins in excess of advantage in goals margins
- Every victory except one by 1 goal, excluding ENG game-sealers
The Florida Classic could help turn things around. Too bad Pokoluk will be at the world junior tournament instead. Even if some people are down on him, he's still a player you want to have playing. Two wins there, agains non-ECAC competition, could be crucial.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: redhair34 (---.pac.mannlib.cornell.edu)
Date: December 06, 2005 04:16PM
[Q]Cactus12 Wrote:
And if Gleed (where is he by the way?)[/q]
injured
And if Gleed (where is he by the way?)[/q]
injured
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: redhair34 (---.pac.mannlib.cornell.edu)
Date: December 06, 2005 04:19PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Too bad Pokoluk will be at the world junior tournament instead. Even if some people are down on him, he's still a player you want to have playing. Two wins there, agains non-ECAC competition, could be crucial. [/q]
He was just invited to try out. He is by no means guaranteed to make the team. As a few people have already mentioned, considering how few NCAA players usually make the team and how poor he has performed this season, chances are he will be in Estero.
Too bad Pokoluk will be at the world junior tournament instead. Even if some people are down on him, he's still a player you want to have playing. Two wins there, agains non-ECAC competition, could be crucial. [/q]
He was just invited to try out. He is by no means guaranteed to make the team. As a few people have already mentioned, considering how few NCAA players usually make the team and how poor he has performed this season, chances are he will be in Estero.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Chris '03 (---.37.117.247.adsl.snet.net)
Date: December 06, 2005 04:24PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
disappointing:
- Offense under 2 goals per game excluding power play and man-short (20 goals in 12 games)
The Florida Classic could help turn things around. Too bad Pokoluk will be at the world junior tournament instead. Even if some people are down on him, he's still a player you want to have playing. Two wins there, agains non-ECAC competition, could be crucial. [/q]
Last year at the break it was 28 5x5 goals in 11 games. And that includes rolling up the score against world-beaters Army, and Sacred Heart. I'm sorry the team is beating better opponents by the same scores.
Also, Pokoluk was invited to try out for World Juniors. He hasn't made the team.
disappointing:
- Offense under 2 goals per game excluding power play and man-short (20 goals in 12 games)
The Florida Classic could help turn things around. Too bad Pokoluk will be at the world junior tournament instead. Even if some people are down on him, he's still a player you want to have playing. Two wins there, agains non-ECAC competition, could be crucial. [/q]
Last year at the break it was 28 5x5 goals in 11 games. And that includes rolling up the score against world-beaters Army, and Sacred Heart. I'm sorry the team is beating better opponents by the same scores.
Also, Pokoluk was invited to try out for World Juniors. He hasn't made the team.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: profudge (---.ct.us.ibm.com)
Date: December 06, 2005 05:17PM
Back to the size discussion, I'd speculate (no facts )
this might be more related to:
+ where we recruit (Western Junior A ),
+ and the trend that players have just gotten bigger in general,
+ along with good (nutrition) food and weight programs.
Given the competition for players and limits to the ones who we can recruit (they can handle Cornell academics) ... I expect some variabliity.
Now if coach sees the NHL style rules enforcement moving to NCAA (it seems to be) then a bit smaller and faster (plus always hustle and move those feet!) makes sense.
Have enjoyed the first half and will enjoy the second half - no matter the outcome - Go Big RED!!
p.s. love good hockey - and the Lynah faithful are the best 'hockey' educated group of fans anywhere - (in my limited experience).
)
this might be more related to:
+ where we recruit (Western Junior A ),
+ and the trend that players have just gotten bigger in general,
+ along with good (nutrition) food and weight programs.
Given the competition for players and limits to the ones who we can recruit (they can handle Cornell academics) ... I expect some variabliity.
Now if coach sees the NHL style rules enforcement moving to NCAA (it seems to be) then a bit smaller and faster (plus always hustle and move those feet!) makes sense.
Have enjoyed the first half and will enjoy the second half - no matter the outcome - Go Big RED!!
p.s. love good hockey - and the Lynah faithful are the best 'hockey' educated group of fans anywhere - (in my limited experience).
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: canuck89 (---.opac.cornell.edu)
Date: December 06, 2005 05:45PM
I think the problem is that too many of us are looking at stats that are not descriptive of the teams success. An 8-3-1 record is very good, however, are any of the wins that convincing? I mean, last year we won a few games with scores of 7-2, 7-2, 6-3, etc. Granted they were against Army, Sacred Heart, Princeton and such, but this year we are struggling for wins (They're practically all one goal games). I do have hope though, and I think that this team can pull it together and improve their play for the second half.
Also, stating that we have 9 players drafted doesn't mean all that much, because even if they do have the talent (They must, they were drafted, right?) that doesn't mean they will use it. I think we are all in agreement that Sasha has been hurting us a lot this year and his play needs to improve a lot. On the other hand, many are playing a lot better than him and have not been drafted. I would like to see players who work hard and try, instead of sitting back on their reputations.
Also, stating that we have 9 players drafted doesn't mean all that much, because even if they do have the talent (They must, they were drafted, right?) that doesn't mean they will use it. I think we are all in agreement that Sasha has been hurting us a lot this year and his play needs to improve a lot. On the other hand, many are playing a lot better than him and have not been drafted. I would like to see players who work hard and try, instead of sitting back on their reputations.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: December 06, 2005 06:20PM
[Q]profudge Wrote: p.s. love good hockey - and the Lynah faithful are the best 'hockey' educated group of fans anywhere - (in my limited experience). [/q]That would be the "Cornell Faithful" according to the Quinnipiac announcers broadcasting from historic Lynah Arena.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: French Rage (---.Stanford.EDU)
Date: December 06, 2005 06:25PM
[Q]billhoward Wrote:
profudge Wrote: p.s. love good hockey - and the Lynah faithful are the best 'hockey' educated group of fans anywhere - (in my limited experience). [/Q]
That would be the "Cornell Faithful" according to the Quinnipiac announcers broadcasting from historic Lynah Arena. [/q]
OR as the say on NESN, The Lynah Arena
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: Killer (---.fidelity.com)
Date: December 06, 2005 06:50PM
[Q]French Rage Wrote:
billhoward Wrote:
profudge Wrote: p.s. love good hockey - and the Lynah faithful are the best 'hockey' educated group of fans anywhere - (in my limited experience). [/Q]
That would be the "Cornell Faithful" according to the Quinnipiac announcers broadcasting from historic Lynah Arena. [/Q]
OR as the say on NESN, The Lynah Arena[/q]
Is that where Kravitz plays?
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: billhoward (---.union01.nj.comcast.net)
Date: December 06, 2005 07:07PM
Was that capital T The Lynah Rink. Announcer must have gone to The Ohio State University. Talk about pretentious. (I should know.)
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 06, 2005 08:15PM
[q]Also, stating that we have 9 players drafted doesn't mean all that much, because even if they do have the talent (They must, they were drafted, right?) that doesn't mean they will use it.[/q]Absolutely. I was simply pointing out that this team does have solid talent on paper. That leads one to think that there is the possibility them playing to that level, and the team being very successful as a result. No guarantees at all.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: KeithK (---.external.lmco.com)
Date: December 06, 2005 08:20PM
[q]Maybe we are transitioning to an NHL/WCHA style of hockey that looks more to scoring than defense.[/q]I really don't think that Schafer has decided to scrap his defense first system in exchange for a high flying, WCHA style game. What may be happening is that he is trying to introduce more speed and skill into the system in order to compete against the top ranked teams. This would be both because of the perception that it's needed to compete nationally and (maybe more importantly) with recent success increasing the prestige of the program it's become possible to recruit some of the higher skill players.
If my hypothesis is correct, then we may be seeing growing pains and the program's style develops. But it's not a wholesale change.
If my hypothesis is correct, then we may be seeing growing pains and the program's style develops. But it's not a wholesale change.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)
Date: December 06, 2005 10:17PM
[Q]KeithK Wrote:
Maybe we are transitioning to an NHL/WCHA style of hockey that looks more to scoring than defense.[/Q]
I really don't think that Schafer has decided to scrap his defense first system in exchange for a high flying, WCHA style game. What may be happening is that he is trying to introduce more speed and skill into the system in order to compete against the top ranked teams. This would be both because of the perception that it's needed to compete nationally and (maybe more importantly) with recent success increasing the prestige of the program it's become possible to recruit some of the higher skill players.
If my hypothesis is correct, then we may be seeing growing pains and the program's style develops. But it's not a wholesale change.[/q]
Keith,
i think we’re mostly in agreement here. by no means do i think we'll see the defense first philosophy scraped in favor of high-flying-WCHA/HEA "big-ice" offensive system.
i think that quote was possibly taken slightly out of context … or maybe we just read it differently. my guess, like yours, is we’re in the early stages of integrating more skilled offensive into our d-first mentality. as i mentioned above in my team size ramblings, we may end up looking something akin to teams like Denver and NoDak. these teams tend to play a more controlled offensive system that to some, could look like our “d-first + O†system. they just pull in the reins whereas we let them out a bit. the chances of seeing the free-wheeling big-ice styles of CC, Minny or UHN inside "the lynah arena" are about as great as the proverbial snowballs chance in hell. i think growing pains most accurately sums up what we’re watching. nothing more, nothing less. i think this team has all the ingredients to be a contender both in the league and nationally, they just have to find the proper mix.
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/06/2005 10:20PM by ben03.
Re: 1st Half: ECAC(HL) Team Size
Posted by: daredevilcu (128.153.216.---)
Date: December 07, 2005 04:51AM
[Q]
Hmm. Interesting perspective, Drew. You obviously have a much more intense following of Clarkson than most of us here, so I'll defer to your judgement, but I remember having discussions with CCT fans 10 years ago over on the old Golden Knight Roundtable.[/Q]
The roundtable still exists, so feel free to make your way over there. It's probably not as active as it was in the 90s, but there are still some of us who post. [www.goldenknightshockey.com]
[Q]The successful Clarkson teams of the early-to-mid-90s certainly had a LOT of speedy guys. That Marko Tuomainen - Patrice Robitaille combination gave me fits. The prototypical Morris guys (in my mind, anyway) were Todd Marchant, Todd White, and Eric Cole...fast, darty players with sick puck-handling skills.
Marchant: 5' 10" 175
White: 5' 10" 181
Cole: 6' 1" 185 [/Q]
During the 90s, George Roll was an assistant coach at Clarkson. He helped recruit many of the "Morris players" that helped make the team successful. Roll recruited 'em, Morris coached 'em from everything I've heard. Roll's recruiting ability is clear to me now, having seen the talent he has brought to Clarkson in Weller, Dodge, Zalewski, and particularly Shea Guthrie. Guthrie is a fantastic puckhandler, speedy and sees the ice extremely well. He's the highest draft pick CCT has had since Erik Cole, but supposedly wasn't heavily recruited because he was playing against a lower level of competition than many major recruits. A great find by the coaching staff. I've also heard that Roll favors big defensemen with heavy point shots to go along with his small, speedy forwards, but I'm not sure how true that is.
Hmm. Interesting perspective, Drew. You obviously have a much more intense following of Clarkson than most of us here, so I'll defer to your judgement, but I remember having discussions with CCT fans 10 years ago over on the old Golden Knight Roundtable.[/Q]
The roundtable still exists, so feel free to make your way over there. It's probably not as active as it was in the 90s, but there are still some of us who post. [www.goldenknightshockey.com]
[Q]The successful Clarkson teams of the early-to-mid-90s certainly had a LOT of speedy guys. That Marko Tuomainen - Patrice Robitaille combination gave me fits. The prototypical Morris guys (in my mind, anyway) were Todd Marchant, Todd White, and Eric Cole...fast, darty players with sick puck-handling skills.
Marchant: 5' 10" 175
White: 5' 10" 181
Cole: 6' 1" 185 [/Q]
During the 90s, George Roll was an assistant coach at Clarkson. He helped recruit many of the "Morris players" that helped make the team successful. Roll recruited 'em, Morris coached 'em from everything I've heard. Roll's recruiting ability is clear to me now, having seen the talent he has brought to Clarkson in Weller, Dodge, Zalewski, and particularly Shea Guthrie. Guthrie is a fantastic puckhandler, speedy and sees the ice extremely well. He's the highest draft pick CCT has had since Erik Cole, but supposedly wasn't heavily recruited because he was playing against a lower level of competition than many major recruits. A great find by the coaching staff. I've also heard that Roll favors big defensemen with heavy point shots to go along with his small, speedy forwards, but I'm not sure how true that is.
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: CowbellGuy (Moderator)
Date: December 07, 2005 02:29PM
[q]Mike Schafer said...
We have not changed our recruiting strategy. Our recruiting strategy is to look for kids with very good work ethic. They need to be competitive, have a very good hockey sense and have good character. If players have this kind of mentality and quality, they will pay attention to being strong two-way players and not just defense first. We are also graduating some offensive players like Matt Moulson, Shane Hynes and Daniel Pegoraro. We need to bring in the type of players that can do the type of things that these guys do for us and this influences how we recruit each year. Those guys will play both ways and have committed to that. We are very honest in our recruiting process on how we like to play. There has been no shift in our recruiting strategy at all.[/q]
We have not changed our recruiting strategy. Our recruiting strategy is to look for kids with very good work ethic. They need to be competitive, have a very good hockey sense and have good character. If players have this kind of mentality and quality, they will pay attention to being strong two-way players and not just defense first. We are also graduating some offensive players like Matt Moulson, Shane Hynes and Daniel Pegoraro. We need to bring in the type of players that can do the type of things that these guys do for us and this influences how we recruit each year. Those guys will play both ways and have committed to that. We are very honest in our recruiting process on how we like to play. There has been no shift in our recruiting strategy at all.[/q]
___________________________
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
"[Hugh] Jessiman turned out to be a huge specimen of something alright." --Puck Daddy
Re: 1st Half
Posted by: adamw (209.71.42.---)
Date: December 07, 2005 05:51PM
Folks ... not being around the program on a consistent basis, I still pay attention, obviously, and I'll tell you what it seems to me. Someone else hit it on the head ...
Cornell is definitely bringing in more skilled players, because the profile of the program has increased, and enabled them to bring in players that are genuinely highly-rated in the recruiting scene. With this, however, these players may not be the same kind of high character, willing-to-immediately-buy-in kind of guys.
I think Schafer will whip them into shape, but I think it may take longer.
That said, Pokulok should know better by now. And McKee's play is a mystery.
And the ECAC is definitely stronger top to bottom right now. St. Lawrence is VERY good, so is Dartmouth. Clarkson is close. Colgate is more than very good. And Harvard has surprisingly stuck right in there.
Cornell is definitely bringing in more skilled players, because the profile of the program has increased, and enabled them to bring in players that are genuinely highly-rated in the recruiting scene. With this, however, these players may not be the same kind of high character, willing-to-immediately-buy-in kind of guys.
I think Schafer will whip them into shape, but I think it may take longer.
That said, Pokulok should know better by now. And McKee's play is a mystery.
And the ECAC is definitely stronger top to bottom right now. St. Lawrence is VERY good, so is Dartmouth. Clarkson is close. Colgate is more than very good. And Harvard has surprisingly stuck right in there.
Re: Farrell Leaves Union
Posted by: ben03 (---.rochester.res.rr.com)
Date: December 09, 2005 02:09PM
Without starting a new thread and having lost to Union, I think this news fits in best here.
The defensive corps for the Union continues to shrink. Freshman Rory Farrell became the latest defenseman to leave the Dutchmen. He informed coach Nate Leaman of his decision to depart following last Saturday’s game against Rochester Institute of Technology
[www.uscho.com]
The defensive corps for the Union continues to shrink. Freshman Rory Farrell became the latest defenseman to leave the Dutchmen. He informed coach Nate Leaman of his decision to depart following last Saturday’s game against Rochester Institute of Technology
[www.uscho.com]
___________________________
Let's GO Red!!!
Let's GO Red!!!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.