Princeton

I'll start this thread. This is going to be a challenging weekend. Princeton has killed 100% of penalties, has taken the fewest penalty minutes of any team in the country, and is second on the power play (guess who's first). Cornell is going to have to stay out of the box and score at even strength, things it has yet to show it can do.

Swampy
I'll start this thread. This is going to be a challenging weekend. Princeton has killed 100% of penalties, has taken the fewest penalty minutes of any team in the country, and is second on the power play (guess who's first). Cornell is going to have to stay out of the box and score at even strength, things it has yet to show it can do.

Not to disagree with your general point, but I'm not sure how significant those stats are given the small sample size; for example they've killed 100% of five power plays, one of which was only 24 seconds long.

Josh '99

Swampy
I'll start this thread. This is going to be a challenging weekend. Princeton has killed 100% of penalties, has taken the fewest penalty minutes of any team in the country, and is second on the power play (guess who's first). Cornell is going to have to stay out of the box and score at even strength, things it has yet to show it can do.

Not to disagree with your general point, but I'm not sure how significant those stats are given the small sample size; for example they've killed 100% of five power plays, one of which was only 24 seconds long.

Good point, I didn't know that. But despite the small sample size, these games are the only way to discern what each team's early strengths and weaknesses are. Seeing how much UNO has been penalized, Schafer may have focused on the powerplay with what limited practice time the team has had. Princeton may have done something similar. Things will change as the season progresses, both because teams will have time to work on other aspects of their games and because of regression to the mean. But early on, this looks like a difficult matchup.

Add to this the fact that #7 Quinnipiac is on deck for the following night, with no love lost between the teams after last year's playoffs, and Princeton could be a classic trap game.

Swampy
Add to this the fact that #7 Quinnipiac is on deck for the following night, with no love lost between the teams after last year's playoffs, and Princeton could be a classic trap game.

I like your take here, but another factor is that most times the coaches prep more for the Friday game of the weekend pair, so Schafer will prep for P and Q's coach will want to avoid Colgate being his team's trap game.

Animosity aside, looks like a wash to me.

As for me, I am looking past Princeton and am stoked to see the Q. game.

Q reloaded nicely with the Clifton brothers and others. Connor Clifton is a beast.

IMHO Q and the Capitol District teams are the big threats this year, with Yale fading. I think Brown also has a shot at being a dark horse candidate.

But we really need to clean up on the ostensible bottom feeders (Colgate, Princeton, Clarkson, Harvard) since more offense-oriented squads tend not to drop as many points against them (winning 5-2 gives you more room for error than winning 2-1).

Trotsky
with Yale fading.

Would have been nice if Cornell had been able to figure out how to beat Yale at their peak. Once in 5 years is pretty bad, and does not give me confidence that the coaching staff has any clue how to beat teams playing a similar game.

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
with Yale fading.

Would have been nice if Cornell had been able to figure out how to beat Yale at their peak. Once in 5 years is pretty bad, and does not give me confidence that the coaching staff has any clue how to beat teams playing a similar game.

I don't think there was really any "figuring it out." They were just better than we were -- during part of that stretch, a lot better. We did beat them twice (2-8 in RS plus the two spectacular crash and burn ECAC finals), which will stand up as fairly ordinary cold streak against a superior squad, assuming we can break it this year:

2-8-0 Yale 09-13
0-5-1 Dartmouth 00-02
2-6-0 Clarkson 96-99
2-9-3 RPI 93-99
0-4-2 Colgate 93-95
1-5-0 Brown 93-95
1-4-1 Clarkson 92-94
0-6-0 SLU 87-89

Lest we forget The Standard for frustration:

0-17-3 Harvard 86-95

Trotsky
IMHO Q and the Capitol District teams are the big threats this year, with Yale fading. I think Brown also has a shot at being a dark horse candidate.

But we really need to clean up on the ostensible bottom feeders (Colgate, Princeton, Clarkson, Harvard) since more offense-oriented squads tend not to drop as many points against them (winning 5-2 gives you more room for error than winning 2-1).

I'll believe Yale is fading when it becomes apparent that their goaltending isn't up to the task; with all due respect to Miller and Laganiere, they didn't lose all that many players from last year's championship team (contrast with Cornell losing 4 of the top 5 scorers after 2002-03) and if one of their two freshman goalies turns out to be good, I don't think they'll have too much of a drop-off.

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
with Yale fading.

Would have been nice if Cornell had been able to figure out how to beat Yale at their peak. Once in 5 years is pretty bad, and does not give me confidence that the coaching staff has any clue how to beat teams playing a similar game.

I don't think there was really any "figuring it out." They were just better than we were -- during part of that stretch, a lot better.

No, it wasn't just that they were better than us. In fact, they were barely any better. We finished 3 points behind them in '09, 1 point behind them in '10, way behind them in '11, way ahead of them in '12, and last year was an unmitigated disaster. Aside from last year, we were right there with them--except when we played them. So the problem is, in fact, that we match up horribly with them and have no idea what to do about it. And given that after last year's debacle they're going to win the recruiting battle, things aren't getting any better any time soon.

BearLover
No, it wasn't just that they were better than us. In fact, they were barely any better. We finished 3 points behind them in '09, 1 point behind them in '10, way behind them in '11, way ahead of them in '12, and last year was an unmitigated disaster. Aside from last year, we were right there with them--except when we played them. So the problem is, in fact, that we match up horribly with them and have no idea what to do about it. And given that after last year's debacle they're going to win the recruiting battle, things aren't getting any better any time soon.

But if you actually look at last year, we weren't right there with them in the standings, but we were when we played them. Yale beat CU both times, true, but 3-2 in OT and 2-1 in two barnburners. The eventual NCAA champs did not blow this team out of the water last season. Even in the standings, Yale finished only 6 points ahead of us, which thanks to the log-jam we failed to get on top of in Jan & early Feb, was the difference between 3rd and 10th.

The disaster last season wasn't how we played against the top 4 of the league, it's that we didn't take care of the Princetons, Clarksons, and Harvards.

BearLover
No, it wasn't just that they were better than us. In fact, they were barely any better

The Yale squads that had O'Neill, Miller, Agostino, Little, Kearney and Backman over a span of just a couple years were significantly better than we were. Those were all very special players. The two ECAC final losses demonstrated the difference in quality.

I do not think Yale will be able to recruit to replace them because them all hitting at once was basically a fluke. Even if Yale can continue as a strong program, they won't be getting players like that anytime soon because those players are very, very rare.

They made the most of their Moment, right at the end of their window, and just by the skin of their teeth (one result away from failing to make the NCAAs at all). Good for them. But just like apparently dominant programs of prior periods, they're coming back to pack, and based on the accumulated losses of the program over the past few seasons, they're ripe for a crash.

RichH
The disaster last season wasn't how we played against the top 4 of the league, it's that we didn't take care of the Princetons, Clarksons, and Harvards.

There's a table for that!

Cornell's record vs the 4 worst ECAC teams not named "Cornell" was 2-4-2 .375, as opposed to 6-7-1 .464 vs the rest of the conference: 0-4-0 against the Frozen Four finalists and 6-3-1 against the rest. As you say, that is what hollowed out last season. If Cornell had played the worst 4 teams the way they played the non-F4 rest, they would have had 4 more points and finished 5th.

BearLover

Trotsky

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
with Yale fading.

Would have been nice if Cornell had been able to figure out how to beat Yale at their peak. Once in 5 years is pretty bad, and does not give me confidence that the coaching staff has any clue how to beat teams playing a similar game.

I don't think there was really any "figuring it out." They were just better than we were -- during part of that stretch, a lot better.

No, it wasn't just that they were better than us. In fact, they were barely any better. We finished 3 points behind them in '09, 1 point behind them in '10, way behind them in '11, way ahead of them in '12, and last year was an unmitigated disaster. Aside from last year, we were right there with them--except when we played them. So the problem is, in fact, that we match up horribly with them and have no idea what to do about it. And given that after last year's debacle they're going to win the recruiting battle, things aren't getting any better any time soon.

This is exactly my point. H2H, we simply couldn't figure them out despite on a number of occasions being near them in the standings. Yale just had our number, and I don't have any confidence that the Cornell coaching staff has any idea how to counter their playing style even after five years.

Kyle Rose
Yale just had our number, and I don't have any confidence that the Cornell coaching staff has any idea how to counter their playing style even after five years.

I think this line of criticism is not very relevant. There is a certain point where the only "strategy" is "get much better players." We've run into that four times since 1980: the three ECAC squads that won national titles and the SLU team that should have in '88. Plus we were that during the middle '00's when we should have won ours.

Now, I don't think anybody here is going to argue against us recruiting much better players (except Ralph ), but I do not think the big issue against Yale was strategic failure. It was dealing with a ridiculously over-skilled opponent. The only way in against them was to exploit their crappy goaltending and force them into a defensive mode, and faulting a team built to win 2-1 games that it isn't a team built to win 8-7 games is like faulting a well-designed submarine that it can't fly.

Yale has, however, refuted a main tenet of The System: this it is impossible for an Ivy to recruit the quality of offensive players needed to win up tempo national championships. I think this was actually completely valid when Mike became coach, and since then circumstances have gradually changed with the loss of the highest tier offensive talent to the CHL, the improvement of the overall pool of college players to where third and fourth line guys are now competent, and the huge improvement in aid opportunities for Ivy athletes. But I do not think it is realistic to expect Mike to completely revise his approach. For as long as he remains coach, we will be built from the goal out. If that's no longer tenable because of systemic changes in the ECAC, we'll make a change. If Cornell gets back to the top playing defense, well, we can enjoy the mounting shutout totals.

Trotsky
Now, I don't think anybody here is going to argue against us recruiting much better players (except Ralph ), but I do not think the big issue against Yale was strategic failure. It was dealing with a ridiculously over-skilled opponent.

I'm just not buying this. I think the issue is more that The System either wasn't or couldn't be adjusted to counter the game Yale plays.

IIRC, the whole point of Cornell's game is to nullify blue chip offenses by keeping them away from the front of the net. That wasn't happening with consistency even against much lesser teams than Yale, which suggests to me that other teams have figured out how to counter The System and have incorporated that into their own systems. Relatedly, I also dispute your assertion that Cornell's early-00's teams were fundamentally more talented than more recent squads; on the contrary, it seems clear to me that there is more talent up-and-down the lineup. I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
Now, I don't think anybody here is going to argue against us recruiting much better players (except Ralph ), but I do not think the big issue against Yale was strategic failure. It was dealing with a ridiculously over-skilled opponent.

I'm just not buying this. I think the issue is more that The System either wasn't or couldn't be adjusted to counter the game Yale plays.

IIRC, the whole point of Cornell's game is to nullify blue chip offenses by keeping them away from the front of the net. That wasn't happening with consistency even against much lesser teams than Yale, which suggests to me that other teams have figured out how to counter The System and have incorporated that into their own systems. Relatedly, I also dispute your assertion that Cornell's early-00's teams were fundamentally more talented than more recent squads; on the contrary, it seems clear to me that there is more talent up-and-down the lineup. I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads. They played The System to a "T". The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well. That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box. Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

redice
The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads. They played The System to a "T". The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well. That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box. Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

It's possible the increase in penalties is due to the game being called more tightly -- that if the 2003 squad were playing with today's rules and interpretations, they'd be going to the box more too. But that would not explain the rash of what appear to be emotional, pointless offenses after the play that have resulted in GMs and DQs. Hopefully that has been corrected since "it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

To return to the subject, here are the CU pregame notes.

redice

Kyle Rose

Trotsky
Now, I don't think anybody here is going to argue against us recruiting much better players (except Ralph ), but I do not think the big issue against Yale was strategic failure. It was dealing with a ridiculously over-skilled opponent.

I'm just not buying this. I think the issue is more that The System either wasn't or couldn't be adjusted to counter the game Yale plays.

IIRC, the whole point of Cornell's game is to nullify blue chip offenses by keeping them away from the front of the net. That wasn't happening with consistency even against much lesser teams than Yale, which suggests to me that other teams have figured out how to counter The System and have incorporated that into their own systems. Relatedly, I also dispute your assertion that Cornell's early-00's teams were fundamentally more talented than more recent squads; on the contrary, it seems clear to me that there is more talent up-and-down the lineup. I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads. They played The System to a "T". The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well. That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box. Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

I don't buy it. If the coach cannot make the players adapt to his system then he is not an effective coach. Isn't is more likely that the coach is trying to adapt his sytem to the opposition and skill set of his players?

Trotsky

redice
The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads. They played The System to a "T". The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well. That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box. Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

It's possible the increase in penalties is due to the game being called more tightly -- that if the 2003 squad were playing with today's rules and interpretations, they'd be going to the box more too. But that would not explain the rash of what appear to be emotional, pointless offenses after the play that have resulted in GMs and DQs. Hopefully that has been corrected since "it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

You're not wrong. But, this team still takes a lot more lack-of-discipline penalties than the early 00's teams.

I've commented before about the earlier Schafer players dropping their arms down by their sides & skating away from the scrums. Not these guys. They've gotta get right in there, push & shove, and mouth off. I'm very confident in saying that there is a lot more of that garbage by the CU team today than there was 10-15 years ago. That stuff leads to penalties. These players need to learn to shut up & skate away.

I haven't seen Bardreau on the ice. Apparently he did tweek something at the end of the game last week.

redice

Trotsky

redice
The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads. They played The System to a "T". The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well. That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box. Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

It's possible the increase in penalties is due to the game being called more tightly -- that if the 2003 squad were playing with today's rules and interpretations, they'd be going to the box more too. But that would not explain the rash of what appear to be emotional, pointless offenses after the play that have resulted in GMs and DQs. Hopefully that has been corrected since "it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

You're not wrong. But, this team still takes a lot more lack-of-discipline penalties than the early 00's teams.

I've commented before about the earlier Schafer players dropping their arms down by their sides & skating away from the scrums. Not these guys. They've gotta get right in there, push & shove, and mouth off. I'm very confident in saying that there is a lot more of that garbage by the CU team today than there was 10-15 years ago. That stuff leads to penalties. These players need to learn to shut up & skate away.

In theory, there's a good middle ground where you draw the other team into committing dumb penalties. In theory.

jek86
I haven't seen Bardreau on the ice. Apparently he did tweek something at the end of the game last week.

Knee…I heard him say that he'll be back soon. We can only hope.

Kyle Rose
I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

I don't know, this makes The System sound like it deserves the capital letters. Cornell plays pretty basic defensive hockey. It's a modified left wing lock and a puck possession cycle in the offensive zone, with (for reasons that I have not understood since Doug Murray graduated) an umbrella power play. In the defensive zone the team is also playing pretty basic hockey - they're really not doing anything fancy at all beyond elevating shot blocking to an art form. All of these patterns have been around for a long time, and if executed correctly by a team with sufficient talent they can be very effective even against top notch freewheeling offenses that feature a few better, faster players. Cornell's problem has been a mixture of poor execution and talent disparity (those Yale teams were more talented, top to bottom, than the comparable Cornell teams - the team with Nash/Nash/Greening all leaving and ending up in the pros was probably the closest to the top Yale team of that recruiting cycle, but Cornell's second line was totally outclassed).

In terms of the talent problem, I think it's affecting Cornell in a way that's a little bit different from the way we usually talk about it. Cornell can no longer field a very efficient team of decent players and dominate the ECAC, because the rest of the league is just better than it used to be. From what little I've been able to see in recent years Cornell has gotten better talent over time, but the improvement has not been as fast as what we've seen with the other ECAC contenders (who seem to be light years ahead of the 2002-2006 span when Cornell was at its peak). Yes, some of Cornell's recent teams have under-performed (particularly last season) but probably not by as much as people seem to think, because the pre-season fan assessment of Cornell's talent level always seems to me to be much greater than the actual performance players exhibit on the ice. The fans inevitably blame the coaches, and they could be right, but given the quality of the coaches and the program's results over this span I'm a lot more comfortable betting that the fans are the ones who got it wrong.

The second problem is either execution or margin for error, depending on how you look at things. A defensive style of play with its entire offense predicated on puck possession coming out of the corners simply can't afford to make any mistakes that lead to cheap goals for faster opponents, or even the kind of mistakes that lead to moderate increases in puck possession for the other side (to say nothing of the monster puck possession swings every one of Cornell's breakout attempts seemed to give to Yale). Back in 2008, when everyone was calling for Schafer's head and it was the end of the world as we know it, Cornell's primary problem was positioning - they'd take a bad line and get beaten to the puck or take dumb penalties or just have too many guys behind the net. In more recent years the primary problem seems to be passing - it's awful, at least when compared to the best teams in the league (Yale). That's why the breakout suffers, and that's why Cornell keeps giving the puck back to those teams. Cornell has been playing with fire with its passing since, basically, 2006. I think the Big Red got away with it against all but the best (again, Yale) because they had periods of strong special teams (at least on the kill, but even one or two seasons on the PP as well) and pretty consistent positional execution, but eventually the wheels came off the bus. Consider last year a perfect storm of badness for Cornell - poor passing led to loss of possession, stupid penalties gave opponents even more opportunities, and awful special teams ensured that opponents took full advantage while Cornell just couldn't generate any easy goals.

To the extent that it's impossible to improve the team's passing and special teams play within the context of the system Cornell has today I guess I agree that the system is the problem, but I just don't see how those things (with the possible exception of the umbrella) are inextricably related, at least not in terms of on-ice execution.

In news that appears to be irrelevant to this thread, I guess Cornell beat Princeton.

Dafatone

redice

Trotsky

redice
The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads. They played The System to a "T". The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well. That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box. Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

It's possible the increase in penalties is due to the game being called more tightly -- that if the 2003 squad were playing with today's rules and interpretations, they'd be going to the box more too. But that would not explain the rash of what appear to be emotional, pointless offenses after the play that have resulted in GMs and DQs. Hopefully that has been corrected since "it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

You're not wrong. But, this team still takes a lot more lack-of-discipline penalties than the early 00's teams.

I've commented before about the earlier Schafer players dropping their arms down by their sides & skating away from the scrums. Not these guys. They've gotta get right in there, push & shove, and mouth off. I'm very confident in saying that there is a lot more of that garbage by the CU team today than there was 10-15 years ago. That stuff leads to penalties. These players need to learn to shut up & skate away.

In theory, there's a good middle ground where you draw the other team into committing dumb penalties. In theory.

Reality: Weren't we the most penalized team in the country last year.

I guess the theory didn't work out so well....

Changing subject to actually talk about the game....

I thought the first and second periods looked good. There was good forechecking and basically taking it to Princeton. And shockingly the PP looked decent too.

The third period looked kind of bad. Not just because Princeton scored, but because once again they switched to a completely defensive mode and they also looked tired to me. That was not encouraging.

McCarron's goal was from my angle pretty nifty looking. I would have loved to see a replay of it.

I have never seen so many flukey goals let in by a goalie and not be pulled. It makes me wonder how bad Priceton's backup is.

Came someone tell me honestly was de Swardt brings to the ice? He has always looked slow to me. There is no offense to speak of and I an suspicious of his defensive abilities. He looked bad last night.

And someone really needs to tell Hilbrich to use his freak'in size. That third period semi-breakaway he had where he tried to outmaneuver the d-man was not good. He should just use his size to his advantage and move people where he needs to.

MattS
McCarron's goal was from my angle pretty nifty looking. I would have loved to see a replay of it.

That goal was really set up by some great play and then an excellent pass by Ferlin. I'm almost certain the way the goal was announced Ferlin was not credited with the second assist, but checking the box score today I see that he now has been. In my mind he's at least as responsible for that goal as McCarron is.

On another note, no one has commented on the really gruesome cut Freschi had after the pileup that led to the penalty shot. He seemed to not realize how badly he was cut until his teammates told him about it. He must have taken a skate blade to the neck, as he had what looked like a very clean, very sharp cut that must have been at least six to eight inches long on his neck. It was ugly. We were really pleased to see him return with a large bandage covering the wound. Hoping he'll heal quickly, and that it looked a lot worse than it was, because it looked terrible.

releck97

jek86
I haven't seen Bardreau on the ice. Apparently he did tweek something at the end of the game last week.

Knee…I heard him say that he'll be back soon. We can only hope.

per schafer post game interview "hopefully out only 2-3 weeks"

Tom Lento

Kyle Rose
I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

I don't know, this makes The System sound like it deserves the capital letters. Cornell plays pretty basic defensive hockey. It's a modified left wing lock and a puck possession cycle in the offensive zone, with (for reasons that I have not understood since Doug Murray graduated) an umbrella power play. In the defensive zone the team is also playing pretty basic hockey - they're really not doing anything fancy at all beyond elevating shot blocking to an art form. All of these patterns have been around for a long time, and if executed correctly by a team with sufficient talent they can be very effective even against top notch freewheeling offenses that feature a few better, faster players. Cornell's problem has been a mixture of poor execution and talent disparity (those Yale teams were more talented, top to bottom, than the comparable Cornell teams - the team with Nash/Nash/Greening all leaving and ending up in the pros was probably the closest to the top Yale team of that recruiting cycle, but Cornell's second line was totally outclassed).

In terms of the talent problem, I think it's affecting Cornell in a way that's a little bit different from the way we usually talk about it. Cornell can no longer field a very efficient team of decent players and dominate the ECAC, because the rest of the league is just better than it used to be. From what little I've been able to see in recent years Cornell has gotten better talent over time, but the improvement has not been as fast as what we've seen with the other ECAC contenders (who seem to be light years ahead of the 2002-2006 span when Cornell was at its peak). Yes, some of Cornell's recent teams have under-performed (particularly last season) but probably not by as much as people seem to think, because the pre-season fan assessment of Cornell's talent level always seems to me to be much greater than the actual performance players exhibit on the ice. The fans inevitably blame the coaches, and they could be right, but given the quality of the coaches and the program's results over this span I'm a lot more comfortable betting that the fans are the ones who got it wrong.

The second problem is either execution or margin for error, depending on how you look at things. A defensive style of play with its entire offense predicated on puck possession coming out of the corners simply can't afford to make any mistakes that lead to cheap goals for faster opponents, or even the kind of mistakes that lead to moderate increases in puck possession for the other side (to say nothing of the monster puck possession swings every one of Cornell's breakout attempts seemed to give to Yale). Back in 2008, when everyone was calling for Schafer's head and it was the end of the world as we know it, Cornell's primary problem was positioning - they'd take a bad line and get beaten to the puck or take dumb penalties or just have too many guys behind the net. In more recent years the primary problem seems to be passing - it's awful, at least when compared to the best teams in the league (Yale). That's why the breakout suffers, and that's why Cornell keeps giving the puck back to those teams. Cornell has been playing with fire with its passing since, basically, 2006. I think the Big Red got away with it against all but the best (again, Yale) because they had periods of strong special teams (at least on the kill, but even one or two seasons on the PP as well) and pretty consistent positional execution, but eventually the wheels came off the bus. Consider last year a perfect storm of badness for Cornell - poor passing led to loss of possession, stupid penalties gave opponents even more opportunities, and awful special teams ensured that opponents took full advantage while Cornell just couldn't generate any easy goals.

To the extent that it's impossible to improve the team's passing and special teams play within the context of the system Cornell has today I guess I agree that the system is the problem, but I just don't see how those things (with the possible exception of the umbrella) are inextricably related, at least not in terms of on-ice execution.

In news that appears to be irrelevant to this thread, I guess Cornell beat Princeton.

What would you propose other than the umbrella on the power play? Overload? 1-3-1? Do we really have the skills and hands to play a 1-3-1 or an overload? I don't think so. Truth is our guys are just less talented than some of our opponents. Dominating puck possession IS about being more skilled. Look at the teams the dominate Corsi and Fenwick. They're the teams that are running out Toews and Kane, or Richards, Kopitar, and Doughty. Teams with Datsyuk, Franzen, and Zetterberg. We don't have the college equivalent of that talent. Not even close. We're more the college equivalent of a Nashville. Solid defense, but nothing up front that's ever going to make you jealous.

andyw2100

MattS
McCarron's goal was from my angle pretty nifty looking. I would have loved to see a replay of it.

That goal was really set up by some great play and then an excellent pass by Ferlin. I'm almost certain the way the goal was announced Ferlin was not credited with the second assist, but checking the box score today I see that he now has been. In my mind he's at least as responsible for that goal as McCarron is.

On another note, no one has commented on the really gruesome cut Freschi had after the pileup that led to the penalty shot. He seemed to not realize how badly he was cut until his teammates told him about it. He must have taken a skate blade to the neck, as he had what looked like a very clean, very sharp cut that must have been at least six to eight inches long on his neck. It was ugly. We were really pleased to see him return with a large bandage covering the wound. Hoping he'll heal quickly, and that it looked a lot worse than it was, because it looked terrible.

I agree that Ferlin's was instrumental to McCarron scoring that goal.


I forgot about that cut on Freschi. I didn't notice anything until he came skating over to show the refs (blood running down his neck) and they basically took a quick look at him and just waved him away. BS on their part.

MattS

I forgot about that cut on Freschi. I didn't notice anything until he came skating over to show the refs (blood running down his neck) and they basically took a quick look at him and just waved him away. BS on their part.

I'm not sure why Schafer sent him over to show the refs his cut. It was pretty obviously from a skate blade, and not the kind of thing that any player could or would have done intentionally. Watching the replay, my best guess is that it was actually Iles' skate that cut Freschi, but it could have been anyone's. Edit-Thinking a little more about it, perhaps Schafer thought that the refs might want Freschi in the penalty box, and sent him over to show them that he needed to be off the ice to have his injury dealt with. In which case their waving him away would have been exactly what they should have done.

And if it makes you feel any better, I think when O'Brien (the ref that we had both nights) skated over to the Cornell bench before the game tonight it looked like he asked Schafer, "How's the kid's neck?" and then responded "Good." to whatever Schafer had said (which I'm guessing was something like "fine" or "OK" but I can't read lips very well when all I can see is the back of someone's head.)

Tom Lento

Kyle Rose
I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

I don't know, this makes The System sound like it deserves the capital letters. Cornell plays pretty basic defensive hockey. It's a modified left wing lock and a puck possession cycle in the offensive zone, with (for reasons that I have not understood since Doug Murray graduated) an umbrella power play. In the defensive zone the team is also playing pretty basic hockey - they're really not doing anything fancy at all beyond elevating shot blocking to an art form. All of these patterns have been around for a long time, and if executed correctly by a team with sufficient talent they can be very effective even against top notch freewheeling offenses that feature a few better, faster players. Cornell's problem has been a mixture of poor execution and talent disparity (those Yale teams were more talented, top to bottom, than the comparable Cornell teams - the team with Nash/Nash/Greening all leaving and ending up in the pros was probably the closest to the top Yale team of that recruiting cycle, but Cornell's second line was totally outclassed).

In terms of the talent problem, I think it's affecting Cornell in a way that's a little bit different from the way we usually talk about it. Cornell can no longer field a very efficient team of decent players and dominate the ECAC, because the rest of the league is just better than it used to be. From what little I've been able to see in recent years Cornell has gotten better talent over time, but the improvement has not been as fast as what we've seen with the other ECAC contenders (who seem to be light years ahead of the 2002-2006 span when Cornell was at its peak). Yes, some of Cornell's recent teams have under-performed (particularly last season) but probably not by as much as people seem to think, because the pre-season fan assessment of Cornell's talent level always seems to me to be much greater than the actual performance players exhibit on the ice. The fans inevitably blame the coaches, and they could be right, but given the quality of the coaches and the program's results over this span I'm a lot more comfortable betting that the fans are the ones who got it wrong.

The second problem is either execution or margin for error, depending on how you look at things. A defensive style of play with its entire offense predicated on puck possession coming out of the corners simply can't afford to make any mistakes that lead to cheap goals for faster opponents, or even the kind of mistakes that lead to moderate increases in puck possession for the other side (to say nothing of the monster puck possession swings every one of Cornell's breakout attempts seemed to give to Yale). Back in 2008, when everyone was calling for Schafer's head and it was the end of the world as we know it, Cornell's primary problem was positioning - they'd take a bad line and get beaten to the puck or take dumb penalties or just have too many guys behind the net. In more recent years the primary problem seems to be passing - it's awful, at least when compared to the best teams in the league (Yale). That's why the breakout suffers, and that's why Cornell keeps giving the puck back to those teams. Cornell has been playing with fire with its passing since, basically, 2006. I think the Big Red got away with it against all but the best (again, Yale) because they had periods of strong special teams (at least on the kill, but even one or two seasons on the PP as well) and pretty consistent positional execution, but eventually the wheels came off the bus. Consider last year a perfect storm of badness for Cornell - poor passing led to loss of possession, stupid penalties gave opponents even more opportunities, and awful special teams ensured that opponents took full advantage while Cornell just couldn't generate any easy goals.

To the extent that it's impossible to improve the team's passing and special teams play within the context of the system Cornell has today I guess I agree that the system is the problem, but I just don't see how those things (with the possible exception of the umbrella) are inextricably related, at least not in terms of on-ice execution.

In news that appears to be irrelevant to this thread, I guess Cornell beat Princeton.

Age, can you bring back the +1 feature so I can give this post a +1?

MattS
Came someone tell me honestly was de Swardt brings to the ice? He has always looked slow to me.

It's a solid defensive-enforcer name. Sounds like the son of a South African mercenary.

billhoward

MattS
Came someone tell me honestly was de Swardt brings to the ice? He has always looked slow to me.

It's a solid defensive-enforcer name. Sounds like the son of a South African mercenary.

Speaking of, the UNO announcers mentioned that during one of those games there were two South African-born players on the ice at the same time. (The UNO roster doesn't list anybody's hometown as SA, so not sure who they meant.)

Tom Lento

Kyle Rose
I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

I don't know, this makes The System sound like it deserves the capital letters. Cornell plays pretty basic defensive hockey. It's a modified left wing lock and a puck possession cycle in the offensive zone, with (for reasons that I have not understood since Doug Murray graduated) an umbrella power play. In the defensive zone the team is also playing pretty basic hockey - they're really not doing anything fancy at all beyond elevating shot blocking to an art form. All of these patterns have been around for a long time, and if executed correctly by a team with sufficient talent they can be very effective even against top notch freewheeling offenses that feature a few better, faster players. Cornell's problem has been a mixture of poor execution and talent disparity (those Yale teams were more talented, top to bottom, than the comparable Cornell teams - the team with Nash/Nash/Greening all leaving and ending up in the pros was probably the closest to the top Yale team of that recruiting cycle, but Cornell's second line was totally outclassed).

In terms of the talent problem, I think it's affecting Cornell in a way that's a little bit different from the way we usually talk about it. Cornell can no longer field a very efficient team of decent players and dominate the ECAC, because the rest of the league is just better than it used to be. From what little I've been able to see in recent years Cornell has gotten better talent over time, but the improvement has not been as fast as what we've seen with the other ECAC contenders (who seem to be light years ahead of the 2002-2006 span when Cornell was at its peak). Yes, some of Cornell's recent teams have under-performed (particularly last season) but probably not by as much as people seem to think, because the pre-season fan assessment of Cornell's talent level always seems to me to be much greater than the actual performance players exhibit on the ice. The fans inevitably blame the coaches, and they could be right, but given the quality of the coaches and the program's results over this span I'm a lot more comfortable betting that the fans are the ones who got it wrong.

The second problem is either execution or margin for error, depending on how you look at things. A defensive style of play with its entire offense predicated on puck possession coming out of the corners simply can't afford to make any mistakes that lead to cheap goals for faster opponents, or even the kind of mistakes that lead to moderate increases in puck possession for the other side (to say nothing of the monster puck possession swings every one of Cornell's breakout attempts seemed to give to Yale). Back in 2008, when everyone was calling for Schafer's head and it was the end of the world as we know it, Cornell's primary problem was positioning - they'd take a bad line and get beaten to the puck or take dumb penalties or just have too many guys behind the net. In more recent years the primary problem seems to be passing - it's awful, at least when compared to the best teams in the league (Yale). That's why the breakout suffers, and that's why Cornell keeps giving the puck back to those teams. Cornell has been playing with fire with its passing since, basically, 2006. I think the Big Red got away with it against all but the best (again, Yale) because they had periods of strong special teams (at least on the kill, but even one or two seasons on the PP as well) and pretty consistent positional execution, but eventually the wheels came off the bus. Consider last year a perfect storm of badness for Cornell - poor passing led to loss of possession, stupid penalties gave opponents even more opportunities, and awful special teams ensured that opponents took full advantage while Cornell just couldn't generate any easy goals.

To the extent that it's impossible to improve the team's passing and special teams play within the context of the system Cornell has today I guess I agree that the system is the problem, but I just don't see how those things (with the possible exception of the umbrella) are inextricably related, at least not in terms of on-ice execution.

In news that appears to be irrelevant to this thread, I guess Cornell beat Princeton.

This was a wonderful post. Another virtual +1.

The other reason we've been getting away with it has been goaltending. Andy's numbers haven't been as impressive as his predecessors, but he is clearly a very solid netminder. Last year avoided being a perfect storm because we didn't have the unthinkable happen. Actually, don't even think about that; the abyss looks into you.

Trotsky
Speaking of, the UNO announcers mentioned that during one of those games there were two South African-born players on the ice at the same time. (The UNO roster doesn't list anybody's hometown as SA, so not sure who they meant.)

Zahn Raubenheimer was born in Praetoria (like you really had to ask).

CowbellGuy

Trotsky
Speaking of, the UNO announcers mentioned that during one of those games there were two South African-born players on the ice at the same time. (The UNO roster doesn't list anybody's hometown as SA, so not sure who they meant.)

Zahn Raubenheimer was born in Praetoria (like you really had to ask).

I did have to ask. "Zahn Raubenheimer" is however one of the coolest names ever.

Trotsky

Tom Lento

Kyle Rose
I think the early-00 squads were simply playing against older-style offenses not coached to specifically counter The System. I suspect the success of The System was a window that has closed, at least temporarily, as a result of changes to other systems.

I don't know, this makes The System sound like it deserves the capital letters. Cornell plays pretty basic defensive hockey. It's a modified left wing lock and a puck possession cycle in the offensive zone, with (for reasons that I have not understood since Doug Murray graduated) an umbrella power play. In the defensive zone the team is also playing pretty basic hockey - they're really not doing anything fancy at all beyond elevating shot blocking to an art form. All of these patterns have been around for a long time, and if executed correctly by a team with sufficient talent they can be very effective even against top notch freewheeling offenses that feature a few better, faster players. Cornell's problem has been a mixture of poor execution and talent disparity (those Yale teams were more talented, top to bottom, than the comparable Cornell teams - the team with Nash/Nash/Greening all leaving and ending up in the pros was probably the closest to the top Yale team of that recruiting cycle, but Cornell's second line was totally outclassed).

In terms of the talent problem, I think it's affecting Cornell in a way that's a little bit different from the way we usually talk about it. Cornell can no longer field a very efficient team of decent players and dominate the ECAC, because the rest of the league is just better than it used to be. From what little I've been able to see in recent years Cornell has gotten better talent over time, but the improvement has not been as fast as what we've seen with the other ECAC contenders (who seem to be light years ahead of the 2002-2006 span when Cornell was at its peak). Yes, some of Cornell's recent teams have under-performed (particularly last season) but probably not by as much as people seem to think, because the pre-season fan assessment of Cornell's talent level always seems to me to be much greater than the actual performance players exhibit on the ice. The fans inevitably blame the coaches, and they could be right, but given the quality of the coaches and the program's results over this span I'm a lot more comfortable betting that the fans are the ones who got it wrong.

The second problem is either execution or margin for error, depending on how you look at things. A defensive style of play with its entire offense predicated on puck possession coming out of the corners simply can't afford to make any mistakes that lead to cheap goals for faster opponents, or even the kind of mistakes that lead to moderate increases in puck possession for the other side (to say nothing of the monster puck possession swings every one of Cornell's breakout attempts seemed to give to Yale). Back in 2008, when everyone was calling for Schafer's head and it was the end of the world as we know it, Cornell's primary problem was positioning - they'd take a bad line and get beaten to the puck or take dumb penalties or just have too many guys behind the net. In more recent years the primary problem seems to be passing - it's awful, at least when compared to the best teams in the league (Yale). That's why the breakout suffers, and that's why Cornell keeps giving the puck back to those teams. Cornell has been playing with fire with its passing since, basically, 2006. I think the Big Red got away with it against all but the best (again, Yale) because they had periods of strong special teams (at least on the kill, but even one or two seasons on the PP as well) and pretty consistent positional execution, but eventually the wheels came off the bus. Consider last year a perfect storm of badness for Cornell - poor passing led to loss of possession, stupid penalties gave opponents even more opportunities, and awful special teams ensured that opponents took full advantage while Cornell just couldn't generate any easy goals.

To the extent that it's impossible to improve the team's passing and special teams play within the context of the system Cornell has today I guess I agree that the system is the problem, but I just don't see how those things (with the possible exception of the umbrella) are inextricably related, at least not in terms of on-ice execution.

In news that appears to be irrelevant to this thread, I guess Cornell beat Princeton.

This was a wonderful post. Another virtual +1.

The other reason we've been getting away with it has been goaltending. Andy's numbers haven't been as impressive as his predecessors, but he is clearly a very solid netminder. Last year avoided being a perfect storm because we didn't have the unthinkable happen. Actually, don't even think about that; the abyss looks into you.

My only real question to the team and coaches is are the players in as good shape as they can / should be? I remember hearing about the extra conditioning the team did in 2003-4, and not coincidentally those teams were strong for all 6+ periods they played each weekend. Am I simply being nostalgic or is this a valid perception -- how fit is the team?

Trotsky
I did have to ask. "Zahn Raubenheimer" is however one of the coolest names ever.

Here is the Canadian translation........Rob Zamuner

KenP
My only real question to the team and coaches is are the players in as good shape as they can / should be? I remember hearing about the extra conditioning the team did in 2003-4, and not coincidentally those teams were strong for all 6+ periods they played each weekend. Am I simply being nostalgic or is this a valid perception -- how fit is the team?

The impression they've given is that they burned an enormous pile of tuition, er, cash on fitness equipment. They didn't look gassed at UNO, where they put up a comeback win, and the shots differentials have been horrible in all periods (-8, -20-, -14).

Trotsky

KenP
My only real question to the team and coaches is are the players in as good shape as they can / should be? I remember hearing about the extra conditioning the team did in 2003-4, and not coincidentally those teams were strong for all 6+ periods they played each weekend. Am I simply being nostalgic or is this a valid perception -- how fit is the team?

The impression they've given is that they burned an enormous pile of tuition, er, cash on fitness equipment. They didn't look gassed at UNO, where they put up a comeback win, and the shots differentials have been horrible in all periods (-8, -20-, -14).

I once again pulled out the Occam's Razor explanation. The teams we've beaten aren't that good. The team we lost to is. We also got fairly lucky, getting severely outplayed at 5v5, Therefore, we're probably not that good. Simplest explanation is usually the truest.

css228

Trotsky

KenP
My only real question to the team and coaches is are the players in as good shape as they can / should be? I remember hearing about the extra conditioning the team did in 2003-4, and not coincidentally those teams were strong for all 6+ periods they played each weekend. Am I simply being nostalgic or is this a valid perception -- how fit is the team?

The impression they've given is that they burned an enormous pile of tuition, er, cash on fitness equipment. They didn't look gassed at UNO, where they put up a comeback win, and the shots differentials have been horrible in all periods (-8, -20-, -14).

I once again pulled out the Occam's Razor explanation. The teams we've beaten aren't that good. The team we lost to is. We also got fairly lucky, getting severely outplayed at 5v5, Therefore, we're probably not that good. Simplest explanation is usually the truest.

We'll test the predictive value this weekend, or at least get some more info on the actual rank ordering of teams. My guess:

0 points ... disappointment
1 ... expectation
2 ... happiness
3 ... bliss
4 ... probable hallucination

redice

Trotsky

redice
The early-00's teams were far, far more disciplined than recent squads. They played The System to a "T". The more recent squads, while much more talented, are less willing to play that disciplined style that made The System work so well. That lack of discipline leads to the obvious breakdown of The System and the far-too-frequent trips to the penalty box. Both a symptom of the same problem; both lead to losses....

It's possible the increase in penalties is due to the game being called more tightly -- that if the 2003 squad were playing with today's rules and interpretations, they'd be going to the box more too. But that would not explain the rash of what appear to be emotional, pointless offenses after the play that have resulted in GMs and DQs. Hopefully that has been corrected since "it was worse than a crime; it was a mistake."

You're not wrong. But, this team still takes a lot more lack-of-discipline penalties than the early 00's teams.

I've commented before about the earlier Schafer players dropping their arms down by their sides & skating away from the scrums. Not these guys. They've gotta get right in there, push & shove, and mouth off. I'm very confident in saying that there is a lot more of that garbage by the CU team today than there was 10-15 years ago. That stuff leads to penalties. These players need to learn to shut up & skate away.

If the fans can't or won't intimidate the opponents, then the players have to pick up the slack.

David Harding
If the fans can't or won't intimidate the opponents, then the players have to pick up the slack.

+1 Awesome post. Bring back the eLynah Like button button.