The Story So Far

Comment here on your overall impressions of the team so far.

My thoughts, in rough order of impact on the season.

1. Goaltending is still shaky

Yes, Ben just had a 45-save shut-out. I'm still not convinced. The guy spends more time on his back than... well, he spends a lot of time on his back. Davenport might have a higher ceiling, but he isn't starting for a reason: either he hasn't looked good in practice, or Mike has some other issue with him. Garman can't get here fast enough for me.

2. Creativity within The System

As in, they have it. For years they ground out a merciless, Imperial Storm Trooper battle of attrition that bludgeoned opponents into submission. Last year they had The Experiment, about which the less said the better. This year they've returned to their defensive roots, but they have guys being highly creative on three of the four lines (the Fontas line could have been a third or fourth line on any team from '01 to '05).

3. Nash and Greening

When was the last time Cornell had two all-ECAC quality forwards simultaneously? For my money, it was 22 years ago, with Nieuwy and Moeser, and those guys were upperclassmen.

4. ECAC power shift?

It's really early, but when you rank the teams by percentage, they are:

1. .857 Clarkson
2. .667 Cornell
3. .643 Harvard
4. .600 RPI
5. .500 Yale
6. .429 Princeton and Quinnipiac (tie)

Colgate and SLU are 11th and 12th.

Trotsky

1. Goaltending is still shaky

Yes, Ben just had a 45-save shut-out. I'm still not convinced. The guy spends more time on his back than... well, he spends a lot of time on his back. Davenport might have a higher ceiling, but he isn't starting for a reason: either he hasn't looked good in practice, or Mike has some other issue with him. Garman can't get here fast enough for me.

I think Davenport had a false ceiling. Don't be fooled by having those textbook technical skills, that look good. Many of your great NHL goalies haven't had them. Look at Martin Brodeur, he flies and flops all over the place, and is one of the very greatest. Do people forget Duffus? He was even more unorthodox than Scrivens, but people were sure sad to see him go.

Not sure what it's going to take to impress people. After 8 games, he has a .936 save %, facing OVER 31 shots per game, getting outshot 3 to 2. Go back and look at ALL the great Cornell records... Just a brief glance at goalie's who averaged 30+ shots per game: Hayward .915, D. Eliot .894, Dadswell .914. The only goalies to put up the numbers Ben is, Dryden, Leneveu and McKe,e saw 25 or less, on MUCH better teams.

This Garman kid, he is very hyped, yeah, so? So wasn't Etienne Belzile. He really isn't performing much better than his rookie teammate. I'm very skeptical. I hope Schafer makes him beat Ben and Troy out of a their respective jobs, and not just give it to him.

Scrivens is playing damn good hockey. He is far outplaying what we saw last year, and what we saw out of the almighty McKee in his Jr. year. Anyone who was impressed with that year's performance had some VERY rosy glasses on.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. The fact is, goaltending is the only consistently solid area right now, with neither Off or Def doing much to help him. If he keeps playing like this, and the team doesn't improve he WILL win the Team MVP award. How can anyone gripe about that.

WillCMJr
I hope Schafer makes him beat Ben and Troy out of a their respective jobs, and not just give it to him.

Ask Dan Pegoraro if players have to earn their ice time from Schafer.

WillCMJr
Not sure what it's going to take to impress people. After 8 games, he has a .936 save %, facing OVER 31 shots per game, getting outshot 3 to 2. Go back and look at ALL the great Cornell records... Just a brief glance at goalie's who averaged 30+ shots per game: Hayward .915, D. Eliot .894, Dadswell .914. The only goalies to put up the numbers Ben is, Dryden, Leneveu and McKe,e saw 25 or less, on MUCH better teams.

They're consistently getting outshot, because 1) they're not dominating on face-offs like we've grown accustomed, and 2) they can't move the puck out of their own end. This means the opposition possesses the puck much more than in previous years. But, they've done an excellent job of defending teams and forcing them to take low percentage shots.

I think whether this team sinks or swims will depend on two things:


1) Moving the puck out of the zone.

If they improve in this area, it will have a ripple effect. More puck possession--> more scoring chances in transition and in general, wearing down defenses, draw more penalties... think: poor man's 04-05 team.


2) upperclassmen stepping up.

Some combination of Gallagher, Taylor Davenport, Mike Kennedy, Scott, Sawada, and Krantz elevating their games.

I have to agree with Will 100%. Scrivens has posted solid numbers so far. He is the second best goalie in the ECAC (after Richter) and is 8th in Save % and 14th in GAA nationally. More importantly, he is not just playing consistently but has been improving as the season goes on. He might not make saves look easy but he makes them and in the end that is what ultimately matters.

They look pretty good in their own zone (getting in shooting lanes, clearing pucks, battling on the boards) and they've looked pretty reasonable when they actually get into the offensive zone. The problem is that they have a terrible transition game. They can't break out and they can't establish themselves in the offensive zone most of the time.

redhair34
They're consistently getting outshot, because 1) they're not dominating on face-offs like we've grown accustomed, and 2) they can't move the puck out of their own end.

I couldn't agree with this more. It seems like they are losing every face-off lately, and this was really noticeable against UMass.

Also, I think it's a fair point that goaltending is probably the only consistent thing we've seen from Cornell this year. Not only are they getting the same goalie every night now, but Scrivens is giving them a chance to win every night. However, Cornell has rarely gotten both their offense and their defense to show up to the same games.

oceanst41
I couldn't agree with this more. It seems like they are losing every face-off lately, and this was really noticeable against UMass.

According to stats on the UMass web site, faceoffs were 34 for Cornell and 33 for UMass.

Al DeFlorio

oceanst41
I couldn't agree with this more. It seems like they are losing every face-off lately, and this was really noticeable against UMass.

According to stats on the UMass web site, faceoffs were 34 for Cornell and 33 for UMass.

Well serves me right. I guess my feeling was more based on the face-offs that were really important. Like late game, inside the offensive zone that can result in a shot on goal, or deep in your own zone, etc. Maybe I can flip that around and say Cornell's face-off wins weren't noticeable.

oceanst41
Well serves me right. I guess my feeling was more based on the face-offs that were really important. Like late game, inside the offensive zone that can result in a shot on goal, or deep in your own zone, etc. Maybe I can flip that around and say Cornell's face-off wins weren't noticeable.

Maybe you were watching Mugford, who was 0-for-5.

Interesting that Cory Quirk was out for 28 of the 67 faceoffs for UMass. Sounds like Vesce back in the "good old days."

Hey - the days aren't so bad. This young group seems to be learning from their mistakes and getting better every game. Yes...they didn't play terribly well at MSG. None of them except the seniors had likely ever played in front of a crowd over 10K, much less a crowd with over 12K Cornell fans. Not an excuse...just a fact. The next game against BU at MSG in a couple of years should be very different.

They came back against a quick UMass-Amherst team and played really well. It kind of reminded me of the game against Wisconsin except the U-Mass didn't have the finishing or inside talent that Wi had. Similar from a difference in style viewpoint though. I thought that the CU coaching staff did a great job of matching lines and making sure that virtually all the UMass shots were from the outside. I suspect that the scoring chances were virtually equal in that game.

This bunch does have a ways to go. They need a few finishers. They have them...they are just young. Think of both Nash brothers and Patrick Kennedy. It will happen,maybe not this year, but it will happen. The seniors seem to have reasonable leadership skills, just not the talent or the hockey skills of the freshmen and the sophomores. Makes for a challenging situation to coach. I do agree with others that Schafer should probably flip the two powerplays. I thought during the UMass game that the two powerplays had about the same total ice-time.

It's only the first half...we'll see what they look like and where the team stands the 2nd week of March.

Larry '72

Larry72
It's only the first half...we'll see what they look like and where the team stands the 2nd week of March.

After SLU's win over Clarkson and another Richter shut-out, ECAC standings are: Clarkson .750; Harvard .688; Cornell .667; everyone else .500 or below.

OK start, I'd say.

[Edit: Should note that Clarkson and Harvard have played five of eight ECAC games at home while Cornell has played four of six on the road. Still early, but no complaints here with conference season to date.]

Al DeFlorio

Larry72
It's only the first half...we'll see what they look like and where the team stands the 2nd week of March.

After SLU's win over Clarkson and another Richter shut-out, ECAC standings are: Clarkson .750; Harvard .688; Cornell .667; everyone else .500 or below.

OK start, I'd say.

[Edit: Should note that Clarkson and Harvard have played five of eight ECAC games at home while Cornell has played four of six on the road. Still early, but no complaints here with conference season to date.]

Granted, Cornell's won every ECAC game they could have been expected to so far, in which Scrivens has started.

At 4-2, they come back from break with:

at RPI
at Union
SLU
Clarkson
Brown
Yale
Colgate

If the Lynah advantage is with them, that could be a 5-2 string and a 9-4 record 2/3rds of the way through the season. That would be outstanding.

Trotsky

At 4-2, they come back from break with:

at RPI
at Union
SLU
Clarkson
Brown
Yale
Colgate

If the Lynah advantage is with them, that could be a 5-2 string and a 9-4 record 2/3rds of the way through the season. That would be outstanding.

Outstanding indeed...I'll cross my fingers for that predicted record, but I'll put my money on a win @ Onion, and a loss at Lynah to one of the North Country teams. Or not...10-3 wouldn't be too shabby either

WillCMJr
I think Davenport had a false ceiling. Don't be fooled by having those textbook technical skills, that look good. Many of your great NHL goalies haven't had them. Look at Martin Brodeur, he flies and flops all over the place, and is one of the very greatest. Do people forget Duffus? He was even more unorthodox than Scrivens, but people were sure sad to see him go.

On the other hand, Rick DiPietro flops all over the place and he sucks. A goalie with an unorthodox style might make some spectacular saves, but they'll often let in soft goals, and I think that frustrates people.

Josh's note to Mike: don't sign Scrivens to a 15-year contract.

Josh '99

WillCMJr
I think Davenport had a false ceiling. Don't be fooled by having those textbook technical skills, that look good. Many of your great NHL goalies haven't had them. Look at Martin Brodeur, he flies and flops all over the place, and is one of the very greatest. Do people forget Duffus? He was even more unorthodox than Scrivens, but people were sure sad to see him go.

On the other hand, Rick DiPietro flops all over the place and he sucks. A goalie with an unorthodox style might make some spectacular saves, but they'll often let in soft goals, and I think that frustrates people.

Could you tell him to 'suck' a bit more against the rangers? Every time I see the guy play he's shutting us out.

evilnaturedrobot

Josh '99

WillCMJr
I think Davenport had a false ceiling. Don't be fooled by having those textbook technical skills, that look good. Many of your great NHL goalies haven't had them. Look at Martin Brodeur, he flies and flops all over the place, and is one of the very greatest. Do people forget Duffus? He was even more unorthodox than Scrivens, but people were sure sad to see him go.

On the other hand, Rick DiPietro flops all over the place and he sucks. A goalie with an unorthodox style might make some spectacular saves, but they'll often let in soft goals, and I think that frustrates people.

Could you tell him to 'suck' a bit more against the rangers? Every time I see the guy play he's shutting us out.

Hence Josh's bitter post, rooted in his teams inability to beat the "sucky" goalie the last 2 years...

Jordan 04

evilnaturedrobot

Josh '99

WillCMJr
I think Davenport had a false ceiling. Don't be fooled by having those textbook technical skills, that look good. Many of your great NHL goalies haven't had them. Look at Martin Brodeur, he flies and flops all over the place, and is one of the very greatest. Do people forget Duffus? He was even more unorthodox than Scrivens, but people were sure sad to see him go.

On the other hand, Rick DiPietro flops all over the place and he sucks. A goalie with an unorthodox style might make some spectacular saves, but they'll often let in soft goals, and I think that frustrates people.

Could you tell him to 'suck' a bit more against the rangers? Every time I see the guy play he's shutting us out.

Hence Josh's bitter post, rooted in his teams inability to beat the "sucky" goalie the last 2 years...

Hey, we beat him last week and at least one of the goals was directly caused by his flopping. I'm not bitter, you've got a bad goalie signed for another 13 years.

Trotsky
3. Nash and Greening

When was the last time Cornell had two all-ECAC quality forwards simultaneously? For my money, it was 22 years ago, with Nieuwy and Moeser, and those guys were upperclassmen.

You're probably right. '90-'91 had Derraugh (career year), Andison and Hughes who all scored 1.5 points per game or higher but Harvard and Clarkson both had 3 guys with better production, St. Lawrence had 2 strong forwards........the league was just different then.

But I still liked our guys best.

Derraugh and Andison is a good comparison for this feeling of having young, exciting guys leading the offense, early in the season. Looking back at the stats, I was surprised to see that flatness of the scoring for Cornell in 87-88. In my (hazy, failing) memory, Derraugh and Andison revived the team after the disastrous 87 season.

The main difference is that we know Nash is kinda a one-night stand, given the way the game has changed, whereas before when we got a great freshman we could enjoy the anticipation of watching him develop and contribute for four glorious seasons.