Are we that good? (Cornell after 10 games)

Are we that good this year or is the rest of the ECAC having a mediocre year and we're what floats to the top? As noted by Trotsky in the SLU postgame thread (also below), this is the second best 10-game start of the Schafer era. As noted by cornellbigred.com, this is only the second time that we've been unbeaten in the first eight ECAC league games, the other time being 1969-70. But still, are we as good as our record indicates? I saw several of the early games in person and the more recent ones on TV/webcasts, and maybe the less stellar early wins and ties seen in person sticks in my mind, such as the one-goal-scored, three point weekend vs. Princeton and Quinnipiac.

Scrivens seems like the real deal and not just an All-Ivy HM placeholder for a Mr. Right in fall 2009 or 2010. Nash and Greening are hot. But we get a lot of penalties. We're back in the 2001-2003 mode: good defense, buzz around the other net a lot without scoring, decent PK, win 1-0 or 2-1. But without Douglas-not-Doug Murray on defense.

OK, we did take it to Princeton in their building and to North Dakota in game two in their grand arena. It is a pleasant surprise. Let's hope it continues into the Florida College Classic against [edit correcting] St. Cloud State [not Minn. State, SCSU's opponent last night] and the next night against Maine or Colgate. Let's hope we're seeing the results of a young team jelling by the one-third point of the season.

>>> [Via Trotsky] Cornell after 10 games, under Schafer
1996 4-3-3
1997 6-3-1
1998 6-3-1
1999 6-3-1
2000 4-6-0
2001 5-3-2
2002 7-2-1
2003 9-1-0
2004 3-2-5
2005 6-2-2
2006 6-3-1
2007 7-3-0
2008 4-5-1
2009 7-1-2

billhoward
. Let's hope it continues into the Florida College Classic against Minnesota State (8-5-3 and unranked)

St. Cloud State (10-6-0), not Minnesota State. Right state...but wrong State

As I mentioned in the SLU postgame thread- this team has a strong goalie, finds a way to win, scores by crashing the net, and always wins at home except a tie against toothpaste.

They feel like the 04 team- like they always win. This team is going to the ECAC finals, at least.

"that good"? I don't think we are. Good, certainly, but we seem to get lucky a whole lot. Scrivens is certainly good, but he gets his breaks, and our offense often struggles. I sincerely hope this team goes far, but I don't think we're as dominant as our record suggests.

At times we look great; at times we still look young.

While the forward lines seem to be settled, there seems to be a lot of shifting on defense. Considering Whitney's sudden emergence, I think the defense will start to settle when Ross returns, since he was already looking like a stalwart in the beginning of the season. One thing that stuck out to me this weekend was that, except for his ill-timed penalties and continued propensity for slamming one-timers into shot-blockers, Brendon Nash is back. He looks on. Took a while, but you take what you can get.

Once the defense becomes more "machine"-like, I will have great confidence in this team. You see, it always takes time for forward lines to gel, and Schafer usually messes around with them late into the season. He's not. He (or maybe Casey Jones) knows something. I think we'll start to see some breakout offensive play in the second half of the season.

I'm very bullish on this team. I think extreme downside is '01, likelihood is '02, and upside is '05. '03 will have to wait (stay R. Nash!) for next year.

BMac
As I mentioned in the SLU postgame thread- this team has a strong goalie, finds a way to win, scores by crashing the net, and always wins at home except a tie against toothpaste.

They feel like the 04 team- like they always win. This team is going to the ECAC finals, at least.

The 2004 team always won??

I think that part of our success is due to a general down year in the ECAC. Clarkson, Harvard, Colgate, and Union are all playing below expectations. The lone exception of a team playing above expectations is Dartmouth. The league's bottom tier this year is weak compared to the last couple years which featured more parity.
Another part of our success is better defensive hockey all-around, from physicality and forechecking to Scrivens playing well.
Finally, luck has seemed to be on our side so far too, although that sort of claim is hard to substantiate.
Until our breakout can get us through the neutral zone more reliably and our offense picks up the pace, I hesitate to call this a great team. I'm not even sure they have the potential to reach the heights of, say, '05-'06.

imafrshmn
The lone exception of a team playing above expectations is Dartmouth.

Yale also. I'm actually pretty terrified of our upcoming games against the Elis.

I think this team will do good things this year,we have great talent all around,we do not have to be playing are best hockey right now,it is only the tenth game,it is very exciting to think we are 7-1-2 without yet playing are best hockey.

2007 7-3-0

There's another season that opened with seven wins, and well, we all know how that ended.

I have to agree with all the prior comments that this team is rather reminiscent of 04-05. Unlike the last few years where it seems like they're going to somehow find a way to lose...this year it just feels like they're going to win and they know it.

That said, I'll voice my usual critique of most Cornell teams - We need to score more goals when we dominate the play like we did in the first period. I'm not sure how or why, but it seems like we score fewer goals when we're carrying the play than when we're playing evenly or even slightly out of our own end. We're certainly getting the looks and the chances and score our fair share of trash collection goals, but I can't recall the last time I saw a Cornell player actually beat a goalie. All our goals come on screens, deflections and rebounds and there's nothing wrong with that, but geez if we could get one or two genuine skill goals a game (like Gallagher's had it gone in) I really think we'd be otherworldly. Until then, we'll take our screens, deflections, and rebounds to the tune of 2.5 goals a game. I remember a stat from
back in i believe 2004-2005 which went something like when cornell allows 2 or fewer goals, undefeated, when allowing more than 2...well not so much. I really think we're a 2.5 goal a night team, but have the offensive talent and potential to get up to more like 3.5.

I think the team is gelling nicely and I think we're right around #10 in the country. Greening still looks like a man amongst boys out there and Brendan Nash looks like he's returning to form. Scrivens still scares me a lot though. I have to disagree with the comments that he looks spectacular. What's spectacular is our shotblocking ability. I have NEVER seen a team block as many shots as we are right now. We had 2 players hurt down on the ice at the same time from blocking shots in one offensive possession. Someone (i couldn't see who in the scrum) blocked a WIDE OPEN SLU shot with under a minute to go that saved the game much like we blocked a last minute ND goal last week. Scrivens made 2 nice glove saves which I give him a lot of credit for, but besides that...not so great (a crossbar and a post). He's no Mckee and no Lenny. He's good, don't get me wrong, but the defense is blocking a TON of shots. I wish Cornell kept track of that stat because i can guarantee you the numbers of blocks would shock a lot of pepople.

So at the 1/3 point I'd say it looks like this.

Negatives:
- Anemic Offense that struggles to put the puck in the net sometimes when it controls the play.
- Breakout can struggle at times.

Positives:
- Shotblocking
- Gallagher, Greening, Mugford
- general chemistry

As usual, if we can get our offense to click just a little more without compromising on defense, we'll be gooooood. Let's not forget that without the 7 goal anomaly at UND, we've allowed just 7 goals in 9 games (6 in the 8 ECAC games). You're going to win a lot of hockey games allowing less than a goal per contest. I think this team is a solid NCAA tourney team at this point, with the upside to make some noise and win some games in the tourney.

Scersk '97
You see, it always takes time for forward lines to gel, and Schafer usually messes around with them late into the season. He's not. He (or maybe Casey Jones) knows something.

I'm sure Casey knows something. However, that would be defense.

Just FYI, the article on cornellbigred.com says 11 blocked shots in the third period...pretty impressive.

CowbellGuy

Scersk '97
You see, it always takes time for forward lines to gel, and Schafer usually messes around with them late into the season. He's not. He (or maybe Casey Jones) knows something.

I'm sure Casey knows something. However, that would be defense.

You mean the Casey Jones that was, admittedly, an outstanding defensive center while at Cornell but somehow managed to score 112 points in 110 games? Sure, he was known primarily as the defensive coach at Ohio State, and is probably working extensively with the penalty kill and defense here, but I would hazard a guess that he knows a thing or two about offense.

My real point is that the lines seem set very early this season, and, to me, they seem to be the obvious lines. I'm pleased with that, and I suppose I don't really care why it has happened.

Be that as it may, he runs the defense, and until the first word in his job title goes away, he'll run the defense.

CUontheslopes
We're certainly getting the looks and the chances and score our fair share of trash collection goals, but I can't recall the last time I saw a Cornell player actually beat a goalie. All our goals come on screens, deflections and rebounds and there's nothing wrong with that,

Well, I think the goal we scored last night was a skill goal. Unlike '04, when CU stubbornly refused to deviate from the Murray-Paolini style of umbrella PP strategy that was nearly unstoppable (because of the personnel that worked perfectly with it), the PP units of this year are willing to try and adapt to different styles. Last night's goal was a wonderful tic-tac-toe passing play that still required some skill from Greening to flip it up and tuck it inside the post.

R. Nash cleanly beat the UND goalie on his breakaway in the 3rd period last Friday, and M. Kennedy's SHG goal the next night was also quite skillful in beating the goalie.

My metric that I usually try to measure a team early in a season: Their conditioning. Specifically, do they get stronger or weaker relative to the opponent as a game goes on? The strongest CU teams get the lead early and muscle their way to a dominant shut-down 3rd. 2003 saw a team where basically, if opponents didn't have a lead by the end of the 1st, they were finished. Offensive power in the 2nd, and a completely devastating locked-down 3rd. Conditioning, conditioning, conditioning to be stronger and last longer than everyone else. This is why I'm not sky-high on this team yet. Already we've seen several "hang on" games: Harvard, Dartmouth, St. Lawrence, UND #2. The 1st UND game is a prime example. CU got to 4-3 in the 3rd and got completely owned the rest of the game. The QU 0-0 game, we really controlled the 3rd. The chemistry and defensive discipline is there (great point on the blocking shots), but the one thing needed to make this a DOMINANT team, the "final-kick" strength (to use a sprinting term), isn't quite there compared to the great CU teams.

A 1-2 game stint in the NCAAs is a very reachable goal for this team. And they're fun to watch. I'm very happy right now.

I simply don't understand why they aren't putting the puck into the net more often. They look way, way more inventive offensively than (frankly) I have ever seen them, even when the Abbotts were zooming around the offensive zone. I think it's just a matter of the lines gelling. I am cautiously optimistic.

As for D, I'm more comfortable with them *most of the time* than I have been for the past few years. They keep the puck along the boards, at least against crappy competition, with a few exceptions that generally result in the crowd bowing to Scrivens. Clearly they need to work on their coverage, but at least I see much less pwnage of the D than in recent years---for an example of what I mean, witness Clarkson looking like they were on a penalty kill for 2-3 minutes at a time last night, even when the teams were at even strength.

Kyle Rose
They look way, way more inventive offensively than (frankly) I have ever seen them, even when the Abbotts were zooming around the offensive zone. I think it's just a matter of the lines gelling.

I agree with that statement for the most part, but I still don't know what happened to the powerplay against SLU after Greening's goal, especially on the 5-minute major. Greening's goal was the kind of perfect, tic-tac-toe, chalkboard PPG that we always seem to have scored against us. But after that, it seemed like the strategy reverted back to the miserable man-advantage of two years ago where we would set up Brendon Nash on the point for a big slapper every freakin' time, much like we used to attempt with Bitz and McCutcheon.

After the 4th or 5th consecutive blast from Nash on the same 5-minute powerplay, I think the SLU penalty killers had wised up to our offensive inventiveness a bit.

Kyle Rose
I simply don't understand why they aren't putting the puck into the net more often. They look way, way more inventive offensively than (frankly) I have ever seen them, even when the Abbotts were zooming around the offensive zone. I think it's just a matter of the lines gelling. I am cautiously optimistic.

Me too. They have two bona fide scoring lines. The Kennedy line just seems snakebit, I don't get it either. The Nash line, one of these nights, is going to have one of those crazy Ryan Vesce 7-point games -- with the kind of game they play, they are bound to strike the right combination of hustle, an opposing goalie with an off-night, some power play chances, and some luck.

But more importantly, for the first time since 2005 the team looks cool, collected, and confident. That's what you need to play over your head in the post-season. Maybe it's a matter of good leadership to go with the skills -- this team seems to have that.

And they are very fun to watch.

Best overall balance we've had in the past few years, and I think Greening is really the catalyst for this team, both in terms of on-ice performance and in his leadership.