Brown at Cornell

Well, that was pretty demoralizing. Evidently, I am not the only one to think so.

I remain convinced that, for the most part, the guys are trying to do the right things but are simply incapable of doing so at the moment: they have the right ideas, but can't execute. E.g., they are trying to break the puck out wide to counter the aggressive forecheck, but make too many mistakes doing so, which both Yale and Brown capitalized on.

The other issue I saw was conditioning: the Cornell players weren't getting to the puck first often enough, especially by the end of the game, preventing them from maintaining pressure in the offensive zone or being able to start the breakout in the defensive zone. A lot of it may actually be a lack of urgency, which was clearly evident at times in body language (something I was not the first to notice).

The bigger picture is twofold: Brown is no longer the perennial doormat of the league, which many mean that the ECAC has achieved greater parity (something that remains to be seen); and Cornell's decade+-long dominance is over, as it is likely to end up well below .500 in league play if they don't pick it up. In the long run, a stronger ECAC would be to Cornell's advantage by making them play to a higher level overall; but this is true only if Cornell continues to attract the talent that enables them to take advantage of the more rigorous training. A couple of ugly years in a row could dig us a big recruiting hole. Modern NCAA rules make teams like the late-90's Schafer-led squads impossible, because they would wind up taking 70 PIM every game, so what kind of game do you run in that situation? Cart before horse, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

2010's load-bearing walls were Greening, Scrivens and the Nashes. We have lost that house forever, but Mike is a good general contractor. If the NCAA has really zoned out the old design, we'll see if he's also a good architect. My money's on him. I have no other choice (Minnesota has a very nice house but it isn't home) and he did design that first house.

Kyle Rose
Modern NCAA rules make teams like the late-90's Schafer-led squads impossible, because they would wind up taking 70 PIM every game, so what kind of game do you run in that situation? Cart before horse, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

Kyle, I think you have hit the nail on the head. There has been a pretty steady migration of the rules, particularly boarding, that has made physical play along the boards much riskier from a penalty perspective. That, unfortunately, has been one of our traditional strengths. This change has in turn given an advantage to fast, puck handling players who no longer have to be as concerned about being manhandled along the boards.

I don't see this trend changing. Given the increased focus on concussions I suspect that the rules will continue to migrate away from the more kinetic aspects of the game. I don't think there will be a no check policy, but I suspect that every big hit will be scrutinized more that in the past and the definition of what is fair and foul will be tipped in favor of the hitee not the hitter.

It seems to me that we are at an "adapt or die" moment. I want to believe that the coaching staff is able to evolve, recruit faster players who can pass and skate with the puck, focus on play at the other end of the rink, and coach offense as well as defense. That is what I want to believe but it will take 3-4 years to make the switch and so far I don't see a lot of evidence that it is happening.

I, too, am disappointed with our start to this season. However,let's not forget the success of last year's team [ECAC tournament champs, generally strong regular season]. And perhaps what's most encouraging for the future is the outstanding group of recruits headed to Ithaca the next two years. In fact next year's class may be Schafer's best.
See you next Saturday at the Pru Center.

Towerroad
Kyle, I think you have hit the nail on the head. There has been a pretty steady migration of the rules, particularly boarding, that has made physical play along the boards much riskier from a penalty perspective. That, unfortunately, has been one of our traditional strengths. This change has in turn given an advantage to fast, puck handling players who no longer have to be as concerned about being manhandled along the boards.

I got a chance one time to watch Schafer, in a very hands-on way, show players how to play defense in a physical manner. He didn't instruct the team to "hit hard," board, or cross-check; rather, he showed the players how to move their feet in order to get ahead of the opposing player, and, after reaching a proper defensive position, how then to direct the opposing player to the boards pin him there. What he showed them how to do next could, I suppose, be called holding, but no ref is going to call it—it was all below the waist, and, done properly, could not result in a trip.

I haven't really seen any of that play yet from this year's team. Indeed, it looks to me like Whitney (who has never really known how, imo) and Devin have forgotten how to play defense. I am certain that there will be much focus on these kinds of fundamentals over the next couple of months. And I expect a very different approach to the back end of the ECAC season.

Kyle Rose
Well, that was pretty demoralizing. Evidently, I am not the only one to think so.

I remain convinced that, for the most part, the guys are trying to do the right things but are simply incapable of doing so at the moment: they have the right ideas, but can't execute. E.g., they are trying to break the puck out wide to counter the aggressive forecheck, but make too many mistakes doing so, which both Yale and Brown capitalized on.

The other issue I saw was conditioning: the Cornell players weren't getting to the puck first often enough, especially by the end of the game, preventing them from maintaining pressure in the offensive zone or being able to start the breakout in the defensive zone. A lot of it may actually be a lack of urgency, which was clearly evident at times in body language (something I was not the first to notice).

The bigger picture is twofold: Brown is no longer the perennial doormat of the league, which many mean that the ECAC has achieved greater parity (something that remains to be seen); and Cornell's decade+-long dominance is over, as it is likely to end up well below .500 in league play if they don't pick it up. In the long run, a stronger ECAC would be to Cornell's advantage by making them play to a higher level overall; but this is true only if Cornell continues to attract the talent that enables them to take advantage of the more rigorous training. A couple of ugly years in a row could dig us a big recruiting hole. Modern NCAA rules make teams like the late-90's Schafer-led squads impossible, because they would wind up taking 70 PIM every game, so what kind of game do you run in that situation? Cart before horse, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

Conditioning may seem to be a factor, but when you're down to 3 lines you lose some speed and strength at the end, say nothing of having to switch your lines around.

We haven't been playing that style for years. Schafer has been trying to turn around, with some missteps such as Romano and Milo. Just look at this years team. They've already made the switch, and got some of the players to do it.

However, I'll still say that it starts with defense. It wasn't a lack of speedy forwards that got us in trouble with Yale, it was an inability to breakout from a 2 man forecheck. That starts with defense. And even with that, with a correct call on a goal, we could have tied or beaten Yale. We started the change years ago. Yale, Princeton for a while, and maybe Union, have jumped ahead with forwards, but I still say that they won't have great impact with the NCAAs unless they improve their defense.

Scersk '97

Towerroad
Kyle, I think you have hit the nail on the head. There has been a pretty steady migration of the rules, particularly boarding, that has made physical play along the boards much riskier from a penalty perspective. That, unfortunately, has been one of our traditional strengths. This change has in turn given an advantage to fast, puck handling players who no longer have to be as concerned about being manhandled along the boards.

I got a chance one time to watch Schafer, in a very hands-on way, show players how to play defense in a physical manner. He didn't instruct the team to "hit hard," board, or cross-check; rather, he showed the players how to move their feet in order to get ahead of the opposing player, and, after reaching a proper defensive position, how then to direct the opposing player to the boards pin him there. What he showed them how to do next could, I suppose, be called holding, but no ref is going to call it—it was all below the waist, and, done properly, could not result in a trip.

I haven't really seen any of that play yet from this year's team. Indeed, it looks to me like Whitney (who has never really known how, imo) and Devin have forgotten how to play defense. I am certain that there will be much focus on these kinds of fundamentals over the next couple of months. And I expect a very different approach to the back end of the ECAC season.

Absolutely correct, he's been preaching that since he came to coach. Moving your feet has always been how he starts to teach defense.

Good comments all. We've certainly been competitive in every game, but have trouble sustaining anything. I agree that most of the trouble has been on the defensive end, which I thought would be a strength. While things seem bleak at the moment, I do think we'll have some better outcomes this season -- hopefully starting on Saturday.

As was pointed out, by all accounts the incoming recruiting classes have some of the more talented players that we've seen in some time. Hopefully, this season is just a minor bump in the road rather than the sign of a decline.

I think this is team that is still feeling its way along; trying to learn & adopt Mike's system. At times last night, I felt they were tentative in their play.

Once they completely get it and just start reacting instinctively to the game, I think they'll be fine...As someone else pointed out, this is a very talented freshman class. They may not be Greening, Gallagher, Krueger, & Scrivens (as they were playing as seniors)....But, there's not a big difference.

Have faith!! Things will be better when Feb & Mar roll around.

Kyle Rose
Modern NCAA rules make teams like the late-90's Schafer-led squads impossible, because they would wind up taking 70 PIM every game, so what kind of game do you run in that situation? Cart before horse, but it's an interesting question nonetheless.

The late 90s (i.e., after 96-97) Schafer squads would take 70 PIMs per game under "modern" NCAA rules (honestly, people, they haven't changed that much) because they weren't very good. In fact, when compared with most of the teams from 2002-2010, those teams were downright bad, and they had far less talent than the current Cornell team. Between 1998 and 2001 they were, at best, middle of the road ECAC teams at a time when the ECAC was not what you'd call a power conference. A couple of rough years could put Cornell back in that state (or worse), and certainly clutching and grabbing your way to a .500 record when you should really be a 9th place team isn't an option. That said, let's not make too much of the performance of the late 90s squads. Schafer got two good years with magical title runs before the bottom dropped out, and it took 4 years before Cornell was back in the NCAAs. According to [www.tbrw.info] Cornell finished in the bottom half of the league in 98 and 99 before getting home ice in 2000, and it was another 2 years before Cornell finished better than 4th. I thought those late 90s squads were better than that, but thinking back - they were pretty bad.

Everybody talks about the rule changes, nobody talks about talent and execution. The late 90s teams clutched and grabbed because they didn't have the talent to execute the system against decent opponents, not because the rules allowed it. The 2003 team had the talent, executed the system against everybody, and would not have been negatively affected by any emphasis on boarding, hooking, holding, whatever. If anything, that would have helped them - they were positionally superb, and less talented opponents were doing whatever they could to keep up in the corners. That team, as a whole, moved its feet better than any college team I've seen. That squad was also faster than most people seemed to think.

What people like Towwerroad don't seem to get is that no matter how the NCAA tweaks the rules and enforcement, you still don't generally get called for boarding and holding when you're between the man and the puck. Being able to consistently beat your man to the spot comes down to talent and execution. In fact, for a good coach the success of the system is all about talent and execution, not tweaks to rule enforcement.

This season could be rough. I'll be surprised if it's any better than 2007-2008. It could be 1998-1999 kind of rough. I doubt it'll be as bad as 1992-93 (I hear it was pretty bad), but you never know. Hang on, it'll be a wild ride.

I think a best case scenario is that this will be a late blooming team. The guys are young and haven't played together a lot. It's not just execution by individuals; they need more time to gel as a team. If they are committed to winning they will do a lot to condition themselves after the end of the semester. If they finish around 6th (RS) in the ECAC, they could very well get to the conference semifinal. I don't think they will go beyond that point though.

Any word on Jillson's condition?

Mike called it a significant upper body injury, but didn't give any details. He is quoted in the Ithaca Journal:

[www.theithacajournal.com]

BigRedHockeyFan
I think a best case scenario is that this will be a late blooming team. The guys are young and haven't played together a lot. It's not just execution by individuals; they need more time to gel as a team.

.
I have a question about this line of reasoning. Roughly 3/4 of the team has played together for at least a year and the ins and outs of Cornell Hockey should not be a surprise. Yes, adjusting to new lines and integrating freshmen will take time but it is not like most of the team is unfamiliar with Mike's system style of play.

I agree with you on your assessment of the season. We can still salvage a season by beating Sucks.

BigRedHockeyFan
Mike called it a significant upper body injury, but didn't give any details. He is quoted in the Ithaca Journal:

[www.theithacajournal.com]

That would be shoulder or collar bone. Ouchie.

Towerroad
We can still salvage a season by beating Sucks.

The "I'd be overjoyed" mark this year is getting to Atlantic City, likely by winning a First Round series at home and then a QF upset on the road.

Now, if you make the Lynah series Clarkson and the QF win at Bright, nobody here will complain.

Trotsky

Towerroad
We can still salvage a season by beating Sucks.

The "I'd be overjoyed" mark this year is getting to Atlantic City, likely by winning a First Round series at home and then a QF upset on the road.

And even if Cornell doesn't make it, the silver lining would be hearing the crickets at the AC rink, which would be one step toward getting the finals back in Albany. Along these lines, my dream would be something like Colgate/Dartmouth/Harvard/Brown, virtually guaranteeing a nearly empty arena.

Josh '99
Any word on Jillson's condition?

Broken forearm - secondhand source from a Sun sports writer.

ajh258

Josh '99
Any word on Jillson's condition?

[specific injury] - second-hand source from a Sun sports writer.

[insert annual discussion about discussing the health of student athletes on elynah or any other public space here]

ajh258

Josh '99
Any word on Jillson's condition?

Broken forearm - secondhand source from a Sun sports writer.

sssfffsfsfs

Kyle Rose
And even if Cornell doesn't make it, the silver lining would be hearing the crickets at the AC rink, which would be one step toward getting the finals back in Lake Placid.

FYP

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
And even if Cornell doesn't make it, the silver lining would be hearing the crickets at the AC rink, which would be one step toward getting the finals back in Lake Placid.

FYP

Chris '03

ajh258

Josh '99
Any word on Jillson's condition?

[specific injury] - second-hand source from a Sun sports writer.

[insert annual discussion about discussing the health of student athletes on elynah or any other public space here]

[Insert annual discussion about how one of our players gets seriously injured seemingly every time we play Brown here]

Josh '99

Chris '03

ajh258

Josh '99
Any word on Jillson's condition?

[specific injury] - second-hand source from a Sun sports writer.

[insert annual discussion about discussing the health of student athletes on elynah or any other public space here]

[Insert annual discussion about how one of our players gets seriously injured seemingly every time we play Brown here]

I felt that the hit looked pretty clean to me. The Brown player did approach Jillson a little bit from behind, but he hit Jillson shoulder to shoulder into the boards. It looked like a good shoulder-shoulder hit to me and Jillson just unfortunately got crunched up funny in the process and got injured.

Trotsky

BigRedHockeyFan
Mike called it a significant upper body injury, but didn't give any details. He is quoted in the Ithaca Journal:

[www.theithacajournal.com]

That would be shoulder or collar bone. Ouchie.

Well, there is a lot more upper body than that. Upper body usually equals above the belt line.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

BigRedHockeyFan
Mike called it a significant upper body injury, but didn't give any details. He is quoted in the Ithaca Journal:

[www.theithacajournal.com]

That would be shoulder or collar bone. Ouchie.

Well, there is a lot more upper body than that. Upper body usually equals above the belt line.

I know, but that's the Standard Operating Euphemism, just as "lower body injury" generally means knee or unmentionables.

Locke wrote to me and implied that he will be back later this season but was very non-specific. The team tends to be very quiet about injuries so I guess those of us off the ice should remain respectful (aren't we always!) and patient.

Trotsky

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

BigRedHockeyFan
Mike called it a significant upper body injury, but didn't give any details. He is quoted in the Ithaca Journal:

[www.theithacajournal.com]

That would be shoulder or collar bone. Ouchie.

Well, there is a lot more upper body than that. Upper body usually equals above the belt line.

I know, but that's the Standard Operating Euphemism, just as "lower body injury" generally means knee or unmentionables.

Frankly, I didn't know that standard, as lower body injury could mean a torn quad or hamstring, couldn't it? Anyway I've never heard that, so be it.

CAS
I, too, am disappointed with our start to this season. However,let's not forget the success of last year's team [ECAC tournament champs, generally strong regular season]. And perhaps what's most encouraging for the future is the outstanding group of recruits headed to Ithaca the next two years. In fact next year's class may be Schafer's best.
See you next Saturday at the Pru Center.

Perhaps more than style of game, the fact that the non-Ivy ECACHL schools offer athletic scholarships and the scholarship policies of Ivies with bigger endowments per student, notably the HYP schools, may be playing a bigger role. It may be that other teams have gotten better, faster players than before but we've lagged behind.

That said, after the HYP schools started offering "need-based" financial aid scholarships even to students with family incomes well into six figures, Cornell adopted strategies to keep up. The quality of the incoming recruiting class may reflect this strategy, since it seems that this class matches not only the rest of the ECACHL as well as lots of the top-tier power schools.

However, this alone does not completely explain this year's slow start. Other years under Schafer have also seen the graduation of pillars of the team without a drop-off like this year. The lack of four lines or perhaps leadership on the part of the upperclassmen might be better explanations.

Jim Hyla
Frankly, I didn't know that standard, as lower body injury could mean a torn quad or hamstring, couldn't it?

I always assumed it had to do with hiding injuries that opponents could target. It's hard to aim for a hammy; easy to hunt a knee.

I first ran into it as a sort of inside joke with Brent Peterson and some other coaches in the WHL (he's now with the Preds and, pardon the drift, DESERVES A HEAD COACHING POSITION if anybody out there needs a new coach, I'm looking at you, Islanders) and perhaps now I just read into it whenever I hear those magic words. In any event, I hope Locke is back soon.

Trotsky

Jim Hyla
Frankly, I didn't know that standard, as lower body injury could mean a torn quad or hamstring, couldn't it?

I always assumed it had to do with hiding injuries that opponents could target. It's hard to aim for a hammy; easy to hunt a knee.

I first ran into it as a sort of inside joke with Brent Peterson and some other coaches in the WHL (he's now with the Preds and, pardon the drift, DESERVES A HEAD COACHING POSITION if anybody out there needs a new coach, I'm looking at you, Islanders) and perhaps now I just read into it whenever I hear those magic words. In any event, I hope Locke is back soon.

I think you're right, but of course if you only say upper body for shoulder and lower body for knee everyone knows what that means. I admit I don't follow the NHL injury report all that closely, but apart from the occasional concussion (followed by the obligatory "he won't return to the ice until he's completely healed" caveat) I don't think I've heard anything other than upper/lower body injury for a few seasons now.

Jacob '06

Josh '99

Chris '03

ajh258

Josh '99
Any word on Jillson's condition?

[specific injury] - second-hand source from a Sun sports writer.

[insert annual discussion about discussing the health of student athletes on elynah or any other public space here]

[Insert annual discussion about how one of our players gets seriously injured seemingly every time we play Brown here]

I felt that the hit looked pretty clean to me. The Brown player did approach Jillson a little bit from behind, but he hit Jillson shoulder to shoulder into the boards. It looked like a good shoulder-shoulder hit to me and Jillson just unfortunately got crunched up funny in the process and got injured.

OK, but that doesn't *really* contradict what I said.

Josh '99

Jacob '06

Josh '99

Chris '03

ajh258

Josh '99
Any word on Jillson's condition?

[specific injury] - second-hand source from a Sun sports writer.

[insert annual discussion about discussing the health of student athletes on elynah or any other public space here]

[Insert annual discussion about how one of our players gets seriously injured seemingly every time we play Brown here]

I felt that the hit looked pretty clean to me. The Brown player did approach Jillson a little bit from behind, but he hit Jillson shoulder to shoulder into the boards. It looked like a good shoulder-shoulder hit to me and Jillson just unfortunately got crunched up funny in the process and got injured.

OK, but that doesn't *really* contradict what I said.

Yeah yeah yeah. I was just trying to get my thoughts out there, I guess I didn't have to quote you.

BigRedHockeyFan
Locke wrote to me and implied that he will be back later this season but was very non-specific. The team tends to be very quiet about injuries so I guess those of us off the ice should remain respectful (aren't we always!) and patient.

From today's (Saturday's) Ithaca Journal:

"On the injury front, junior winger Locke Jillson was still deemed a "50/50" possibility by Schafer as of Wednesday afternoon. After suffering what Schafer classified as a significant injury after a scary collision along the boards on Saturday, Jillson was still gauging in practice if he could continue to play."