Union Postgame

So I'll start it. All I expect from this team is 3 pts at home & 2 on the road. Throw in an occ. 4 & 3 and you've got a good season.

I beg to differ. Sure, 2 points are great for a weekend in the North Country or at Lynah East and in Hanover. But not all road games are created equal. I expect at least 1 point against Union.

Still, I realize that last night's game against RPI was physically exhausting and the team was hurting a bit tonight. As Trotsky noted in the other thread, I hope we can learn something from tonight.

Jim Hyla
2 on the road.

Judging by what I saw tonight, that's also what the team expects. I understand your point though. I'm more concerned about seeing shades of the 06-07 squad on the ice.

metaezra
I beg to differ. Sure, 2 points are great for a weekend in the North Country or at Lynah East and in Hanover. But not all road games are created equal. I expect at least 1 point against Union.

Still, I realize that last night's game against RPI was physically exhausting and the team was hurting a bit tonight. As Trotsky noted in the other thread, I hope we can learn something from tonight.

5-3 in league with only two of those games at home is reasonably good regardless of opponent for this team. Only 5 road games to go with 9 at home. That looks favorable to me. I'd rather see the team beat a solid RPI squad on the road and fall flat against union than beat union and lose to RPI personally. The team is a long way from solid contender and isn't totally healthy. There's plenty of hockey to go and much of it will be in friendly confines.

Hopefully the team will be back in Albany in two months.

Only 5 road games to go with 9 at home. That looks favorable to me.

If they can win at home. They haven't been a Lynah RS juggernaut lately: 7-4-2 in the last two seasons, plus the unfortunate matter of the '07 QF.

Jim Hyla
So I'll start it. All I expect from this team is 3 pts at home & 2 on the road. Throw in an occ. 4 & 3 and you've got a good season.

With respect, Jim, it bothers me a little when people frame college hockey in these terms. This isn't bowling -- it's not just Cornell versus the same generic opponent every night. Over the last few years, I've seen this team play 100 percent and lose, and also play lazily and win.

Cornell faces a different opponent every time they skate, and whether they win, lose, or tie depends on a multitude of factors. There have been zero games this year about which I would have said "Cornell should definitely lose," and the Niagara games were the only ones in which I said "Cornell should definitely win."

I don't look at this as a respectable two-point road weekend. I see two games in which (from what I've heard) Cornell was outshot, outhit, and outhustled. Instead of honing its ability to plunder a solid EZAC winning percentage from the ruins of an otherwise mediocre season, I'd like to see this team play each game like it's theirs to win. And we've had the chance to win every game this year.

31 total SOG against two bottom-half ECAC teams.

Clarkson looked very beatable in Florida, and SLUt has a losing record. 3 points will keep us competitive at the top of the standings, but as far as I'm concerned, 4 points is the target.

Trotsky

Only 5 road games to go with 9 at home. That looks favorable to me.

If they can win at home. They haven't been a Lynah RS juggernaut lately: 7-4-2 in the last two seasons, plus the unfortunate matter of the '07 QF.

On the other hand, Onion has been very fragrant at home this year.

They are 6-1-3 at home with the loss coming in the final two minutes of the third period vs Nebraska Omaha. That said, their at home schedule has not been against highly ranked opponents.

ebilmes
With respect, Jim, it bothers me a little when people frame college hockey in these terms. This isn't bowling -- it's not just Cornell versus the same generic opponent every night. Over the last few years, I've seen this team play 100 percent and lose, and also play lazily and win.

Cornell faces a different opponent every time they skate, and whether they win, lose, or tie depends on a multitude of factors. There have been zero games this year about which I would have said "Cornell should definitely lose," and the Niagara games were the only ones in which I said "Cornell should definitely win."

Every year we are going to win some we should lose and lose some we should win. It is a bad loss, for sure, but as previously discussed the Union bug appears to be a sadly chronic condition.

ebilmes
but as far as I'm concerned, 4 points is the target.

Of course that's the target, but my point is that everyone seems to be very negative all the time. It's like we have the best team in the nation (OK a bit of hyperbole) and we're falling flat. We are not Wisconsin or Minny, we are an Ivy League school that has given us a lot of pleasure over the years. My expectations seem a lot lower than most who post here, but having seen the magnificent Harkness years, as well as those terribly down periods, I'm enjoying the Schafer years. I don't ever expect to go back to the late 60's and early 70's, there are just too many scholarship schools playing hockey. But I do expect us to be competitive in our league each year. This year we are and I expect us to be competitive all the way to Albany. However, I doubt past there. Next year maybe.

Having gotten down off my soapbox, I also have to also agree with you on your main point (I think). We should look at how they perform against the quality of the competition. That's why I said throw in an occasional 3 pt road weekend. This past weekend was one of those, like Brown/ Yale, that I hoped we could get 3 road points. I'm happy, however, with 2 and the ability to improve. There are many more under producing teams just in our league than we are, say Harvard, SLU, and Colgate.

I guess I just like half full glasses, maybe as I get old mine have turned to rose colored.

Really, past results are not the best indicator of future performance, as we're so often reminded.

If the team wins their next game, they're doing better in league than last year. Win the next two games, and they're doing better than '06. Go on a tear, win the next eight, and they've matched '05.

Yeah, they're not '03, but so what? Even the magical '03 team lost a close one to Colgate (who finished eighth that year) on the road.

How many seniors on this squad? Oh, right, four.

The problem, Jim, is not your perspective, but the utter lack of perspective from so many on this board. My message to the classes of '05 and '06? If you can't take the lean years, don't watch.

This team is not going anywhere. Disgraceful performance this weekend. I thought Cornell was lucky to come away with the win at RPI and even though both teams played horrible on Saturday, Union was clearly the better team for that 60 minutes. And when our top line is a minus 2 for the night, we will lose almost every time. I thought Nash and Greening both had their worst weekends of the year.

I think it will be especially tough for this team to rebound now that the injuries are piling up... although luckily the "parody" in the ECAC now is such that the overall quality of play is sufficiently poor to think that another trip to Albany might not be totally out of the question...

Scersk '97
Really, past results are not the best indicator of future performance, as we're so often reminded.

If the team wins their next game, they're doing better in league than last year. Win the next two games, and they're doing better than '06. Go on a tear, win the next eight, and they've matched '05.

Yeah, they're not '03, but so what? Even the magical '03 team lost a close one to Colgate (who finished eighth that year) on the road.

How many seniors on this squad? Oh, right, four.

The problem, Jim, is not your perspective, but the utter lack of perspective from so many on this board. My message to the classes of '05 and '06? If you can't take the lean years, don't watch.

I completely agree. Good fans are loyal fans, especially during mediocre years. Clearly, Cornell is not as good as the 02-03 or 05-06 teams, but they are better than the 98-99 team. Much of the fun this year is in watching the young players develop and in watching the team gel. With regard to the latter, I think they are ahead of the 06-07 team, which seemed to have significant "clubhouse" problems. I believe they will finish in the ECAC top 4 and assuming there are no "premature graduations" should have a much better team next year.

Doug '08
This team is not going anywhere.


[snip]

...although luckily the "parody" in the ECAC now is such that the overall quality of play is sufficiently poor to think that another trip to Albany might not be totally out of the question...

So, I guess Albany is nowhere? There were years in the past when we were happy to make the playoffs!

Really, perfect example of a spoiled fan-base. Let's see... '05, '06, '07, '08... a little miffed that you're not going to recapture the underclass glory years?

Scersk '97
Really, perfect example of a spoiled fan-base. Let's see... '05, '06, '07, '08... a little miffed that you're not going to recapture the underclass glory years?

I talked to Doug at Union on Saturday, and assured him he would get this response if he posted his thoughts here. For the record, I agree with him. I'd be satisfied with a trip to Albany this year, but only given their mediocre performance resulting from known and yet still unremediated problems. That I'm not satisfied with.

AFAICT, this team is wasting talent year-in and year-out, and I'm surprised more people don't see it. Or maybe they do, and they're just too afraid to post their thoughts here for fear of the Always Positive Brigade dropping a 500 pound bomb on them.

Kyle

krose
AFAICT, this team is wasting talent year-in and year-out, and I'm surprised more people don't see it. Or maybe they do, and they're just too afraid to post their thoughts here for fear of the Always Positive Brigade dropping a 500 pound bomb on them.

Kyle, I think you know me well enough to realize that I'm hardly a member of the Always Positive Brigade, so I'm here to tell you that hyperbole doesn't help your point.

The 2006 team gave eventual national champion Wisconsin all it could handle in a regional semi-final in Wisconsin. The 2005 team lost a close regional final in Minnesota to the Gophers. The 2004 team simply wasn't that good, and it also suffered a number of bad injuries towards the end of the year. I don't think that team wasted talent, but for that one season it's at least possible. The 2003 team lost a 1-goal game in the national semi-final. The 2002 team lost a tough game in the regional final, and that team was about a year away from greatness.

And if you think the 1998, 1999, and 2000 teams were wasting talent, then you're even crazier than I remember. Those teams weren't very good, talent-wise, and it showed on the ice and in the standings (although 2000 had TONS of potential in that amazing freshman class). The 1996 team, by almost any measure, overachieved. The 1997 team did AT LEAST as well as it was expected to, and pulled a minor upset over a higher-seeded Miami team in the NCAAs before getting run over by the NoDak juggernaut.

To say that Cornell "is wasting talent year-in and year-out" is simply preposterous given the results the team has put up. Unless year-in and year-out really means "maybe 2004 (4 years ago), maybe last year, and so far this year."

I suggest you stick to meaningful complaints about the coaching and leadership. There are enough of those (e.g. the power play strategy and the breakout) without all the crazy talk. :p

As Tom said, the break out and power play continue to be frustrating, but, hey, they've always been frustrating. I can't begin to tell you how frustrating the break out and power play were in the McCutcheon years...

I'll go with the other side of Tom's comment regarding "wasting talent": I don't really think this team is all that talented, top to bottom. The four members of the senior class are either overachieving (Fontas), about right but not surrounded with the right personnel (Scott), or, frankly, underachieving (Krantz and Sawada). Both of our underachievers came in highly touted and haven't exactly panned out: Krantz, at least, is much better in his own end than when he started, even if he isn't putting up offensive stats this year; who knows what's wrong with Sawada? (And then there's that Pokulok guy we lost...) It's not a great thing when 3/4s of your captains aren't playing spectacularly well. (One can only hope we have a single (junior) captain next year...)

Just take a look at the stats. This team is heavily freshman and sophomore driven. They're going to make mistakes; they're going to get pushed around. I think those are two really good recruiting classes, though. One more like those and we're set to make a deep run. Then it's just the matter of a hot, talented goalie.

Underachieving? Maybe overachieving instead. I think the analogy here is to 2001 or maybe even 2000.

So, what I want to see is improvement over last year, which I think we've seen. I want us to be competitive, which is all you can ask for in a rebuilding year like this. I want our boys to dedicate themselves during and after this season to becoming bigger, faster, and stronger. Anything else is gravy. I can be patient.

(My one coaching thing that I'd like to see is for Schafer to put together an all frosh and soph power play unit. Give them a couple of years to gel.)

Scersk '97
This team is heavily freshman and sophomore driven. They're going to make mistakes; they're going to get pushed around. I think those are two really good recruiting classes, though. One more like those and we're set to make a deep run. Then it's just the matter of a hot, talented goalie.

Can Scrivens be that goalie? He currently has a 94.4% save percentage and 1.58 GAA in ECAC play. With the exception of disappointing RIT opener, the BU game, and some hiccups in Florida, I think he has been everything we can possibly ask for. And unless this secret gets out, I see no reason for him not to play two more seasons on East Hill.

Scersk '97

(My one coaching thing that I'd like to see is for Schafer to put together an all frosh and soph power play unit. Give them a couple of years to gel.)

I'll go one step further..... Schafer should assemble his lines and leave them alone (except as necessitated by injury). I have always felt that constantly juggling lines (by Schafer or any other hockey coach) is a signal to the world that you don't know how to put together effective lines.

That's a bad signal to be sending out; especially to your own players!!

Just imagine how much more effective this team could be if lines were left "unjuggled" and players could actually build some chemistry with their linemates (i.e. know where their linemates are without having to look).

krose
they're just too afraid to post their thoughts here for fear of the Always Positive Brigade dropping a 500 pound bomb on them.

I think the Eternally Realistic Army is misunderstood as the Always Positive Brigade by the success-spoiled undergrads of roughly classes '05-'08.

The one problem I have with Scersk's thinking that the team will come together nicely in a year or two is that the state of college hockey and recent defections seem to defy that optimism. It'd be great to see greening and nash together for two more years. Will it happen? When we start recruiting top end talent, it comes with the price of wondering for how long it will be on loan to the university. The big schools can take the blows because they land multiple blue chippers annually. We're grateful to see one a year.

Scersk '97
Yeah, they're not '03, but so what? Even the magical '03 team lost a close one to Colgate (who finished eighth that year) on the road.

That game was a screw job. Fuckin' Alex Dell.

The infrastructure is in place for Cornell to be a perennial top ten team. I know that is Schafer’s goal and should be realistic at this point.

If Schafer wants to stick to the tried and true grind it out style of game, recruiting needs to be done accordingly. Otherwise, I’d like to see players develop on the other end of the ice as well.

I do realize that this is a rebuilding year and I think the team will be very good next year (top 10). That being said, given the whole purpose of rebuilding, I’d like to see the coaches, and players go out of their comfort zone a little.

All in all, there is a lot of hockey left to be played this season and to be blunt, I don’t think any of us have the faintest clue what the future holds- which is why I love college hockey.

Tom Lento
The 1997 team did AT LEAST as well as it was expected to, and pulled a minor upset over a higher-seeded Miami team in the NCAAs before getting run over by the NoDak juggernaut.

Nitpick: The Miami game was not an upset. Miami was given the higher seed on the basis of head to head comparison but we outranked them in the overall pairwise. Today's committee would have put us in white. The best you can say isthat we were evenly ranked with the Redskins.

KeithK

Tom Lento
The 1997 team did AT LEAST as well as it was expected to, and pulled a minor upset over a higher-seeded Miami team in the NCAAs before getting run over by the NoDak juggernaut.

Nitpick: The Miami game was not an upset. Miami was given the higher seed on the basis of head to head comparison but we outranked them in the overall pairwise. Today's committee would have put us in white. The best you can say isthat we were evenly ranked with the Redskins.

My fondest memory of that game, other than the Matt Cooney empty-netter, was reading that a certain rat-resembling coach told his Miami team that morning "don't bother packing your bags, fellas...we're staying another day."

RichH

KeithK

Tom Lento
The 1997 team did AT LEAST as well as it was expected to, and pulled a minor upset over a higher-seeded Miami team in the NCAAs before getting run over by the NoDak juggernaut.

Nitpick: The Miami game was not an upset. Miami was given the higher seed on the basis of head to head comparison but we outranked them in the overall pairwise. Today's committee would have put us in white. The best you can say isthat we were evenly ranked with the Redskins.

My fondest memory of that game, other than the Matt Cooney empty-netter, was reading that a certain rat-resembling coach told his Miami team that morning "don't bother packing your bags, fellas...we're staying another day."

"I got us a group rate for tickets to tomorrow's game!"

KeithK

Tom Lento
The 1997 team did AT LEAST as well as it was expected to, and pulled a minor upset over a higher-seeded Miami team in the NCAAs before getting run over by the NoDak juggernaut.

Nitpick: The Miami game was not an upset. Miami was given the higher seed on the basis of head to head comparison but we outranked them in the overall pairwise. Today's committee would have put us in white. The best you can say isthat we were evenly ranked with the Redskins.

They had, however, beaten us earlier in the season at Lynah.

I'll never forgive or understand the ref in that game for not whistling play dead when the Miami player with the puck in our zone lost his helmet. Everybody in the rink besides that ref knew play should have been dead at that moment, but instead it was a goal, the difference in a one-goal loss.

On the other hand, the Cornell players shouldn't have backed off of him until they heard a whistle.

Beeeej

KeithK

Tom Lento
The 1997 team did AT LEAST as well as it was expected to, and pulled a minor upset over a higher-seeded Miami team in the NCAAs before getting run over by the NoDak juggernaut.

Nitpick: The Miami game was not an upset. Miami was given the higher seed on the basis of head to head comparison but we outranked them in the overall pairwise. Today's committee would have put us in white. The best you can say isthat we were evenly ranked with the Redskins.

They had, however, beaten us earlier in the season at Lynah.

I'll never forgive or understand the ref in that game for not whistling play dead when the Miami player with the puck in our zone lost his helmet. Everybody in the rink besides that ref knew play should have been dead at that moment, but instead it was a goal, the difference in a one-goal loss.

On the other hand, the Cornell players shouldn't have backed off of him until they heard a whistle.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't. If anyone had hit a helmetless player he would have been whistled for a penalty and possibly a major.

Chris '03
I think the Eternally Realistic Army is misunderstood as the Always Positive Brigade by the success-spoiled undergrads of roughly classes '05-'08.

I find your ideas intriguing and would like to join your organization.

I think if we don't have wholesale departures like prior to 2007, we'll usually be OK. Better yet, though, get the types like Greening that are going to stay all four. I think it's worth it to get a two-year man if he's a goalie or a hot-shot forward, but D departures are a bit more difficult to swallow, so I would avoid Pokuloks in the future.

Tom Lento
Blah

Tom, I'm not going to try to refute your message point-by-point. I will simply say that we are perhaps not so far apart from each other. My specific criticism is that Schafer can't configure an offense, and has not brought in an assistant who knows how to do so, while recruiting power forwards like Riley Nash and Greening who are then left to fend for themselves, and smaller, faster guys like Topher and Scali who are much less effective at the old Schafer system simply by virtue of size and weight. Thus, their talent is wasted.

I'm specifically not talking about seasons prior to 2004. I was thrilled with Schafer for the 1996-2003 seasons. He was a god among men. And so forth.

To sum up, I would be satisfied if Schafer would do one of two things: (1) hire an assistant who can coach offense or (2) go back to the old, grinding, defense-minded system and recruit the trees-on-skates that were effective at implementing it.

Kyle

krose

Tom Lento
Blah

Tom, I'm not going to try to refute your message point-by-point. I will simply say that we are perhaps not so far apart from each other. My specific criticism is that Schafer can't configure an offense, and has not brought in an assistant who knows how to do so, while recruiting power forwards like Riley Nash and Greening who are then left to fend for themselves, and smaller, faster guys like Topher and Scali and Romano who are much less effective at the old Schafer system simply by virtue of size and weight. Thus, their talent is wasted.

I'm specifically not talking about seasons prior to 2004. I was thrilled with Schafer for the 1996-2003 seasons. He was a god among men. And so forth.

To sum up, I would be satisfied if Schafer would do one of two things: (1) hire an assistant who can coach offense or (2) go back to the old, grinding, defense-minded system and recruit the trees-on-skates that were effective at implementing it.

Kyle

FYP.

krose
I'm specifically not talking about seasons prior to 2004. I was thrilled with Schafer for the 1996-2003 seasons. He was a god among men. And so forth.

Of course, Jamie Russell leaving was the big change after 2003, and Michigan Tech's power play immediately got better after he arrived, but it's also at times been similarly anemic to ours over the last few years. So I guess it must be personnel.

When's Nieuwendyk going to come back as a "volunteer?"

Scrivens earned his keep at RIP. The defensive letdowns were serious and he was up to it.

On Saturday the skate was on the other foot. Mzazek was amazing when the Red tried to rally at the end and the letdowns by Cornell cost us two goals.

krose

Tom Lento
Blah

To sum up, I would be satisfied if Schafer would do one of two things: (1) hire an assistant who can coach offense or (2) go back to the old, grinding, defense-minded system and recruit the trees-on-skates that were effective at implementing it.

Kyle

I agree about hiring an offensive minded assistant as there is a lack of creative (and/or effective) offensive play. That being said, there is also a great need for the team to start playing together as a team. In 05 and 06 that happened as the season wore on. Will it happen this year?

As an RIP season and seasoned ticket holder I am amazed that they seem to be doing a swoon at this point. Reminds me of the Fridgen coached teams and Seth Appert is not in any way like the Fridge. WTF is it with them? I don't know, but one thing for sure is that you can't count your wins before the puck is dropped. Anyone pick Onion to make it a four point weekend? Anyone besides the Onion team pick Onion to finish higher than 10th in the league?

My point is that much of this opining is just that and whether the Red do this or that is an unanswerable question in my mind. I just hope to enjoy the year and so far this year it has been a bit of a yawner.

redice
I'll go one step further..... Schafer should assemble his lines and leave them alone (except as necessitated by injury). I have always felt that constantly juggling lines (by Schafer or any other hockey coach) is a signal to the world that you don't know how to put together effective lines.

That's a bad signal to be sending out; especially to your own players!!

Just imagine how much more effective this team could be if lines were left "unjuggled" and players could actually build some chemistry with their linemates (i.e. know where their linemates are without having to look).

So, you don't like the reshuffling he did with Sawada? Should you put together the best lines you see in the Red-White game and leave them forever? I don't know of a team sport where you never change the player combos. I think he tries to find the best combos and if they are not working, then dam it, change it. You may not agree with the changes, but that's why they pay him to be the coach.

krose
... while recruiting power forwards like Riley Nash and Greening who are then left to fend for themselves, and smaller, faster guys like Topher and Scali who are much less effective at the old Schafer system simply by virtue of size and weight. Thus, their talent is wasted.

I'm specifically not talking about seasons prior to 2004. I was thrilled with Schafer for the 1996-2003 seasons. He was a god among men. And so forth.

Kyle

So, how did Vesce fit into your discussion. He spanned your years, was small, and I think (please tell me if I'm wrong) did very well in the Schafer system.


I'll say all over again, to me, these last 13 years have been second only to the glory late 60's/ early 70's and I certainly don't expect to see them again. We have grown used to excellent years and great NCAA games, not last year and probably not this year, but I still think we have a good system. I'll also say again, what ECAC school wouldn't trade their years with us?

krose

Tom Lento
Blah

My specific criticism is that Schafer can't configure an offense

. . .

To sum up, I would be satisfied if Schafer would do one of two things: (1) hire an assistant who can coach offense or (2) go back to the old, grinding, defense-minded system and recruit the trees-on-skates that were effective at implementing it.

You're basically saying that the team wasted talent last year and so far this year, because I don't think you can make that claim for 2005 or 2006 either. Last year I can see where you're coming from, but I think it's a bit unfair to complain about wasting talent given that it was the first year with the smaller lineup. Besides, that team's big problem was on defense, not offense - they were *awful* in their own end.

As for the systems in place, Schafer's offense has been based on winning battles in the corners, cycling endlessly, and throwing the puck in front of or at the net. It's not the prettiest offensive strategy but it can be highly effective.

Power forwards are *exactly* what you want for that offense. Guys like Shane Hynes, Matt Moulson, and Colin Greening are the prototypical Cornell forward. Guys like Topher Scott and Ryan Vesce are great as well - they add another dimension with their quickness, passing, and puckhandling and they're tough enough to win the battles in the corners. The smaller, fast, open ice skill guys like Milo and Romano (and possibly David Hovey - remember him?) are not well-suited to that offensive system, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure why they came here.

I don't know what the deal is at the moment. It may be that they got a couple of classes with the wrong types of recruits. It may be that they're in the middle of a drastic shift in strategy and it will either be ultimately unsuccessful or it's going through some serious growing pains. It may be that they thought they were getting guys who would buy in to a cycling system but haven't done so.

Personally, I'd like to see an assistant who can get the team to improve its passing top to bottom, and who can design a different power play. Honestly, I think if they improve their decision-making and passing the breakout and offensive zone play will be fine. The set breakout play that they ran in 2002 and 2003 was superb, and had enough options that it was difficult to contain regardless of the forechecking strategy. Now, it seems like the set breakout is always an adventure.

Jim Hyla

redice
I'll go one step further..... Schafer should assemble his lines and leave them alone (except as necessitated by injury). I have always felt that constantly juggling lines (by Schafer or any other hockey coach) is a signal to the world that you don't know how to put together effective lines.

That's a bad signal to be sending out; especially to your own players!!

Just imagine how much more effective this team could be if lines were left "unjuggled" and players could actually build some chemistry with their linemates (i.e. know where their linemates are without having to look).

So, you don't like the reshuffling he did with Sawada? Should you put together the best lines you see in the Red-White game and leave them forever? I don't know of a team sport where you never change the player combos. I think he tries to find the best combos and if they are not working, then dam it, change it. You may not agree with the changes, but that's why they pay him to be the coach.

Jim, I'm not trying to say that some of the line changes were not improvements. And no, I don't think we need to take the extreme and carry the Red-White game lines through to the end of the year. (Frankly, I find that a bit sarcastic on your part).

On the other hand, at some point, early in the season, he should have some idea of the strengths/weaknesses of each player. At that point, he should put the lines together and let them gel. Let me be clear, it's the constant line changes that I object to.

Tom Lento
As for the systems in place, Schafer's offense has been based on winning battles in the corners, cycling endlessly, and throwing the puck in front of or at the net. It's not the prettiest offensive strategy but it can be highly effective.

Except there are more guys (Nash this year, Romano last year stick out) trying to puck handle into the zone, but without the systematic support (passing, positioning, i.e. all coaching) that would make such a strategy successful. Wouldn't you agree that it would be best to have multiple tools in the toolbox, if you will?

Power forwards are *exactly* what you want for that offense. Guys like Shane Hynes, Matt Moulson, and Colin Greening are the prototypical Cornell forward. Guys like Topher Scott and Ryan Vesce are great as well - they add another dimension with their quickness, passing, and puckhandling and they're tough enough to win the battles in the corners.

I didn't see Topher winning too many of those battles this weekend. Honestly, I think some of our guys have actually regressed in effectiveness over their time here, and Topher is one of them. Why? Who knows.

The smaller, fast, open ice skill guys like Milo and Romano (and possibly David Hovey - remember him?) are not well-suited to that offensive system, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure why they came here.

Ok, so you agree that some recent recruiting doesn't fit the system?

I don't know what the deal is at the moment. It may be that they got a couple of classes with the wrong types of recruits. It may be that they're in the middle of a drastic shift in strategy and it will either be ultimately unsuccessful or it's going through some serious growing pains. It may be that they thought they were getting guys who would buy in to a cycling system but haven't done so.

All of the above are coaching issues. (Recruiting is part of coaching.)

Personally, I'd like to see an assistant who can get the team to improve its passing top to bottom, and who can design a different power play. Honestly, I think if they improve their decision-making and passing the breakout and offensive zone play will be fine. The set breakout play that they ran in 2002 and 2003 was superb, and had enough options that it was difficult to contain regardless of the forechecking strategy. Now, it seems like the set breakout is always an adventure.

I don't disagree at all. I said the same thing, but without whitewashing it. They need better offensive coaching. It's that simple.

Kyle

redice

Jim Hyla

redice
I'll go one step further..... Schafer should assemble his lines and leave them alone (except as necessitated by injury). I have always felt that constantly juggling lines (by Schafer or any other hockey coach) is a signal to the world that you don't know how to put together effective lines.

So, you don't like the reshuffling he did with Sawada? Should you put together the best lines you see in the Red-White game and leave them forever? I don't know of a team sport where you never change the player combos. I think he tries to find the best combos and if they are not working, then dam it, change it. You may not agree with the changes, but that's why they pay him to be the coach.

Jim, I'm not trying to say that some of the line changes were not improvements. And no, I don't think we need to take the extreme and carry the Red-White game line through to the end of the year. (Frankly, I find that a bit sarcastic on your part).

On the other hand, at some point, early in the season, he should have some idea of the strengths/weaknesses of each player. At that point, he should put the lines together and let them gel. Let me be clear, it's the constant line changes that I object to.

Well, I'm glad you recognize sarcasm cause that's how it was intended. Look, you said he should assemble his lines and leave them alone. No mention of some changes being OK, or that this should only be after some determined early part of the season. Frankly, I consider anything done before Jan. to be the early part of the season, so we are just now getting past it. And if Coach Schafer feels he can rearrange things to get more output, go for it. I'd feel a lot worse for a coach who never said he made a mistake, nor could he get any better than how he started.

Most hockey teams like reasonably stable lines, but they all are rather constantly tweaking them to get them better. Look at teams that start double shifting a star once the season gets to crunch time.

I'd like to think that if we on top of the hockey world, then we might not be arguing these points, but I don't know about that. I do know that we are not likely to get that far, but we can have some fun trying. All you have to do is to look how easy it would have been for the team to stumble before they got to that UHN game. We could easily not have been in Buffalo, and that was with the best team we've had in years.

So, to recap, 98% of this thread has been fans criticizing other fans for the way they root.

Moral: If you're going to split, always lose the Friday game.

Now, back to some useful discussion of the Union game...

Union is always a hard place to play. It is a tiny rink with no corners, and Cornell seemed to be struggling. They could not get set up to work their offense there most of the time. Part of that, I am convinced is that Cornell runs a lot of their offense from the corners, and Union's rink really seems to eliminate a lot of corner cycling. In any case, Union did a good job clogging up the ice.


Union played a really good tactical game. They moved the puck quickly out of their zone, and did a good job limiting what Cornell could do on the small ice.


Having watched more than one Cornell loss at Union against clearly inferior talent, I would suggest not making any generalizations about the team based on their play there.

krose
I don't disagree at all. I said the same thing, but without whitewashing it. They need better offensive coaching. It's that simple.

I whitewashed nothing. After all, as you decided to go to great lengths to show, my entire previous post was about areas where the coaching staff might need some improvement (and that was intentional, since we were discussing coaching). I just disagree that it's that simple.

I think there were a couple of high-profile recruits who didn't pan out, and maybe a couple more who didn't develop as expected. Some of that is unreasonable expectations by the fans, some of it is on the coaching staff, and some of it is bad luck, but all of it happens to every coach at some point. I think last year's team had terrible trouble in the defensive zone - much more so than the offensive zone - so a better offensive coach wouldn't have helped as much as you think.

I also think a lot of the complaining about the offense has to do with an unreasonable expectation of Cornell changing its identity overnight. Schafer recruited two or three smaller, quicker forwards and suddenly the Big Red was going to be the ECAC's answer to the late-90s NoDak teams. This will never be a wide-open offensive minded team under Schafer. If that's what you expect, get used to disappointment.


As for Union - Cornell always struggles there. Even when they win, it's not pretty. With Union being halfway decent and Cornell in a bit of a down year, I'm not at all surprised by this result.

Jim Hyla

redice

Jim Hyla

redice
I'll go one step further..... Schafer should assemble his lines and leave them alone (except as necessitated by injury). I have always felt that constantly juggling lines (by Schafer or any other hockey coach) is a signal to the world that you don't know how to put together effective lines.

So, you don't like the reshuffling he did with Sawada? Should you put together the best lines you see in the Red-White game and leave them forever? I don't know of a team sport where you never change the player combos. I think he tries to find the best combos and if they are not working, then dam it, change it. You may not agree with the changes, but that's why they pay him to be the coach.

Jim, I'm not trying to say that some of the line changes were not improvements. And no, I don't think we need to take the extreme and carry the Red-White game line through to the end of the year. (Frankly, I find that a bit sarcastic on your part).

On the other hand, at some point, early in the season, he should have some idea of the strengths/weaknesses of each player. At that point, he should put the lines together and let them gel. Let me be clear, it's the constant line changes that I object to.

Well, I'm glad you recognize sarcasm cause that's how it was intended. Look, you said he should assemble his lines and leave them alone. No mention of some changes being OK, or that this should only be after some determined early part of the season. Frankly, I consider anything done before Jan. to be the early part of the season, so we are just now getting past it. And if Coach Schafer feels he can rearrange things to get more output, go for it. I'd feel a lot worse for a coach who never said he made a mistake, nor could he get any better than how he started.

Most hockey teams like reasonably stable lines, but they all are rather constantly tweaking them to get them better. Look at teams that start double shifting a star once the season gets to crunch time.

I'd like to think that if we on top of the hockey world, then we might not be arguing these points, but I don't know about that. I do know that we are not likely to get that far, but we can have some fun trying. All you have to do is to look how easy it would have been for the team to stumble before they got to that UHN game. We could easily not have been in Buffalo, and that was with the best team we've had in years.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm okay with that. I'm not going continue with a discussion that looks like it could easily venture into the realm of being a pi$$ing contest.

Mike_87
Now, back to some useful discussion of the Union game...

Union is always a hard place to play. It is a tiny rink with no corners, and Cornell seemed to be struggling.

From USCHO:

Lynah Rink
Dimensions: 200x85
Built: 1957
Capacity: 4,267


Achilles Center
Dimensions: 200x85
Capacity: 2,225

I get that small feeling in Schenectady, too. This topic has come up in years past. I have yet to go over there with a tape measure.

Your observation that the corners are different is interesting. Is that why the rink feels small from the stands?

marty
From USCHO:

Achilles Center
Dimensions: 200x85
Capacity: 2,225

For what it is worth, Wikipedia lists 201x86 ft. And the corner in the picture does seem a little bit shallow.

[en.wikipedia.org]

metaezra

marty
From USCHO:

Achilles Center
Dimensions: 200x85
Capacity: 2,225

For what it is worth, Wikipedia lists 201x86 ft. And the corner in the picture does seem a little bit shallow.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Are we saying that the corners are very rounded - a large curve radius?

Josh '99

metaezra

marty
From USCHO:

Achilles Center
Dimensions: 200x85
Capacity: 2,225

For what it is worth, Wikipedia lists 201x86 ft. And the corner in the picture does seem a little bit shallow.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Are we saying that the corners are very rounded - a large curve radius?

Right. Like the old Boston Arena was before Northeastern renovated it and turned it into Mathews Arena. The old Boston Arena had an egg-shaped ice surface, with essentially no "corners" as we know them today. Both Northeastern and BU played there back in the 60s.

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

metaezra

marty
From USCHO:

Achilles Center
Dimensions: 200x85
Capacity: 2,225

For what it is worth, Wikipedia lists 201x86 ft. And the corner in the picture does seem a little bit shallow.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Are we saying that the corners are very rounded - a large curve radius?

Right. Like the old Boston Arena was before Northeastern renovated it and turned it into Mathews Arena. The old Boston Arena had an egg-shaped ice surface, with essentially no "corners" as we know them today. Both Northeastern and BU played there back in the 60s.

you also need to remember that lynah has abnormally deep corners. You don't always realize it until you have skated on other rinks and then skate at Lynah. I haven't been to union in several years, but based on the picture shown in the wikipedia picture, Union's corners don't look that abnormal.

Dpperk29

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

metaezra

marty
From USCHO:

Achilles Center
Dimensions: 200x85
Capacity: 2,225

For what it is worth, Wikipedia lists 201x86 ft. And the corner in the picture does seem a little bit shallow.

[en.wikipedia.org]

Are we saying that the corners are very rounded - a large curve radius?

Right. Like the old Boston Arena was before Northeastern renovated it and turned it into Mathews Arena. The old Boston Arena had an egg-shaped ice surface, with essentially no "corners" as we know them today. Both Northeastern and BU played there back in the 60s.

you also need to remember that lynah has abnormally deep corners. You don't always realize it until you have skated on other rinks and then skate at Lynah. I haven't been to union in several years, but based on the picture shown in the wikipedia picture, Union's corners don't look that abnormal.

Well the ice does look a little rinky-dink from the stands. I can't figure it out but the best theory I have heard in the last year or so is that TAEdison's ghost releases some form of flogiston in the area just before gametime which helps the Dutchmen - at least its working again this year.