LP Games

Enough talk about who's coming and where we'll stay, it's time to get talking about the games. Here to start it is USCHO's Nate Owen's pregame report.

Never a high-scoring team this season, the Big Red’s offense took a hit with the loss of forward Dustin Mowrey, who Schafer said is out for the year.

Edit: New information only if you didn't watch Schafer's press conference.

Cornell will be very tough. They are physically the biggest team in College Hockey in both height and weight. The last time we played you we needed stretcher bearers to carry off our dead and wounded during the ceasefire. I think we lost three starters from that game and that really hurt, especially Carr. It was very costly. Cornell is well disciplined, always follows through on their checks and has been a "top 10" on team defense (8th currently) in College hockey. That defense is anchored by one of the premier college hockey goalies, Andy Iles. It is very hard to get shots by him as Clarkson recently found out. Early in the year your power play led the nation. You are ahead of us on the penalty kill.

Most troubling of all, Cornell always plays at another level when in tournaments or big games. We saw this two years ago when you upset Michigan in the NCAA's. One of the reasons is that they are so well coached. Make no mistake about that. We are also going up against one of the best coaches in College hockey. If there is a way for Cornell to win, Schafer will have it figured.

We have several positives on our side but as Coach Bennett said in one of the news conferences, the team that wants it the most, when the puck drops .....

It was to our advantage to play a very big and tough and physical Dartmouth team as preparation but the same can be said about your games with Clarkson.

If we manage a win against Cornell ..... the heros are going to be The Captain (defense) and Ghost (defense) and Stevens. With the big ice we need to take away the added time and space from the Cornell forwards. Win or lose, I hope our casualty count is not high, going into the NCAA.

Hey Dutchman, I hope no one gets hurt in the game. We just want to win and play you guys again in April. Good luck for the rest of the season.

Here is the scoop on the Lake Placid tourney from Ed Weaver in today's Troy Record:

marty
Here is the scoop on the Lake Placid tourney from Ed Weaver in today's Troy Record:

Erm...

Beeeej

marty
Here is the scoop on the Lake Placid tourney from Ed Weaver in today's Troy Record:

Erm...

I think he got it right.

Kyle Rose

Beeeej

marty
Here is the scoop on the Lake Placid tourney from Ed Weaver in today's Troy Record:

Erm...

I think he got it right.

He has a green, no ink, no paper, no electron vantage point.

Kyle Rose

Beeeej

marty
Here is the scoop on the Lake Placid tourney from Ed Weaver in today's Troy Record:

Erm...

I think he got it right.

He's a man of few words.

Is today's game shown online anywhere?

French Rage
Is today's game shown online anywhere?

Fox Sports Go. You sign in using your cable provider and only works if you get Fox College Sports. If anyone has a username and pw to share, please do.

Booker's in Lansing is showing it on the big screen.

Audio [www.ivyleaguedigitalnetwork.com]

Ugh. Not sure if I'm more annoyed by the fact that I couldn't get out of work and missed the first period, that the bar I raced to with full directv package doesn't get fox sports ATLANTIC, or that we're losing 2-0. Not a good day so far...

I'm SO happy the ECAC is better now! I'm really going to be pulling for Union in the NCAA's!!

BearLover
I'm SO happy the ECAC is better now! I'm really going to be pulling for Union in the NCAA's!!

Keep on keepin' on.

Tough loss for Cornell. Let's face it, Union has a great team.

I hope they win the whole thing now.

Looking forward to 2015 season. If no one leaves Cornell early, the team should be outstanding.

Thank you Andy Iles, Craig Esposito, Roger Craig, Armand de Swardt, Kirill Gotovets, and Dustin Mowrey.

ugarte

BearLover
I'm SO happy the ECAC is better now! I'm really going to be pulling for Union in the NCAA's!!

Keep on keepin' on.

Yeah? I was getting tired of losing to the #2 team in the country in the NCAA's. Now we can forgo having to do that by losing to the #2 team in the country in the ECAC's!

Icy
Tough loss for Cornell. Let's face it, Union has a great team.

I hope they win the whole thing now.

Looking forward to 2015 season. If no one leaves Cornell early, the team should be outstanding.

Thank you Andy Iles, Craig Esposito, Roger Craig, Armand de Swardt, Kirill Gotovets, and Dustin Mowrey.

Agreed. I thought we played really well (that first goal shouldn't have gotten through, but Iles made a lot of huge saves) and Union just outplayed us. Somewhere in the 3rd, it dawned on me that we'd had almost no odd-man rushes all game. Good job by Union to clog the neutral zone and get back on defense.

Icy
Looking forward to 2015 season. If no one leaves Cornell early, the team should be outstanding.

Cornell finished the year with a plus-FOUR goal differential. That is not a characteristic of an outstanding team. That is a characteristic of a middling team that gets to take the rest of March off.

For reference, the goal differential of Union is plus-FIFTY-SEVEN.
The goal differential of Q is plus-SIXTY-FIVE.

U and Q are leaps and bounds ahead of CU. Why do you expect Cornell to be any better next year?

BearLover

Icy
Looking forward to 2015 season. If no one leaves Cornell early, the team should be outstanding.

Cornell finished the year with a plus-FOUR goal differential. That is not a characteristic of an outstanding team. That is a characteristic of a middling team that gets to take the rest of March off.

For reference, the goal differential of Union is plus-FIFTY-SEVEN.
The goal differential of Q is plus-SIXTY-FIVE.

Cornell is leaps and bounds behind U and Q. Why do you expect Cornell to be any better next year?

Are you actually just trolling at this point?

If a team keeps most of its top players, you can expect them to improve. That gets a duh.

As to your point above about #2 teams, you might want to look up what happened last time Cornell played a #2 overall in the NCAAs, way back in 2012.

^^ Goal differential probably is a better indication of lop-sided scores and overall offensive explosiveness than winning. 17-10-5 is a reasonable record. We have an outstanding class of 2015 - Ferlin, Ryan, Lowry and McCarron were our top four scorers. Bardreau (6th in scoring) is simply a great two-way hockey player. There's only one senior leaving who was a top 10 scorer........our second leading senior scorer this year was a solid defenseman with 4 points.

That said, until we're a few games into the season who knows how good our new goaltending will be? To me, that will be the question. I think it's clear that we'll be good defensively, we have an emerging (established? take your pick) star in scoring defenseman Ryan, and we have balanced scoring with a lot of class of 2015 senior leadership.

RatushnyFan
^^ Goal differential probably is a better indication of lop-sided scores and overall offensive explosiveness than winning. 17-10-5 is a reasonable record. We have an outstanding class of 2015 - Ferlin, Ryan, Lowry and McCarron were our top four scorers. Bardreau (6th in scoring) is simply a great two-way hockey player. There's only one senior leaving who was a top 10 scorer........our second leading senior scorer this year was a solid defenseman with 4 points.

That said, until we're a few games into the season who knows how good our new goaltending will be? To me, that will be the question. I think it's clear that we'll be good defensively, we have an emerging (established? take your pick) star in scoring defenseman Ryan, and we have balanced scoring with a lot of class of 2015 senior leadership.

Well, the top scorers are skewed by Mowrey's injury (and we, unsurprisingly, took a bit of a turn south right around when he went out). But yeah, goalie's the biggest issue. That and whether everyone stays.

RatushnyFan
^^ Goal differential probably is a better indication of lop-sided scores and overall offensive explosiveness than winning. 17-10-5 is a reasonable record. We have an outstanding class of 2015 - Ferlin, Ryan, Lowry and McCarron were our top four scorers. Bardreau (6th in scoring) is simply a great two-way hockey player. There's only one senior leaving who was a top 10 scorer........our second leading senior scorer this year was a solid defenseman with 4 points.

That said, until we're a few games into the season who knows how good our new goaltending will be? To me, that will be the question. I think it's clear that we'll be good defensively, we have an emerging (established? take your pick) star in scoring defenseman Ryan, and we have balanced scoring with a lot of class of 2015 senior leadership.

No, goal differential is a pretty good proxy for how good you really were. Blowouts are a good thing. Being on the right side of a bunch of them means that your wins reflect skill more than chance.

That said, I think the team is going to be pretty good next year if our goaltending - a huge unknown - holds up but the issues on offense this year were real. We had no margin for error.

Dafatone

BearLover

Icy
Looking forward to 2015 season. If no one leaves Cornell early, the team should be outstanding.

Cornell finished the year with a plus-FOUR goal differential. That is not a characteristic of an outstanding team. That is a characteristic of a middling team that gets to take the rest of March off.

For reference, the goal differential of Union is plus-FIFTY-SEVEN.
The goal differential of Q is plus-SIXTY-FIVE.

Cornell is leaps and bounds behind U and Q. Why do you expect Cornell to be any better next year?

Are you actually just trolling at this point?

If a team keeps most of its top players, you can expect them to improve. That gets a duh.

As to your point above about #2 teams, you might want to look up what happened last time Cornell played a #2 overall in the NCAAs, way back in 2012.

Yeah, they'll improve. But what makes anyone think they'll actually be good? 17-10-5 is a solid record. The problem is that Cornell was not a 17-10-5 team, as its goal differential demonstrates.

The #2 thing strengthens my argument: all you need to do is get in. When we were the best team, we always got in.

^^ Goal differential probably is a better indication of lop-sided scores and overall offensive explosiveness than winning.

Noooooooooooo. This is NOT correct--in fact the total opposite is true.


I think Cornell will be fine next year. My argument is, as it has always been, that an improved ECAC is not something we want. It just doesn't work out that way when game win % is such a massive component of the PWR. And that's not even considering all of the potential Cornell recruits U, Q, and Y are eating up.

BearLover

Dafatone

BearLover

Icy
Looking forward to 2015 season. If no one leaves Cornell early, the team should be outstanding.

Cornell finished the year with a plus-FOUR goal differential. That is not a characteristic of an outstanding team. That is a characteristic of a middling team that gets to take the rest of March off.

For reference, the goal differential of Union is plus-FIFTY-SEVEN.
The goal differential of Q is plus-SIXTY-FIVE.

Cornell is leaps and bounds behind U and Q. Why do you expect Cornell to be any better next year?

Are you actually just trolling at this point?

If a team keeps most of its top players, you can expect them to improve. That gets a duh.

As to your point above about #2 teams, you might want to look up what happened last time Cornell played a #2 overall in the NCAAs, way back in 2012.

Yeah, they'll improve. But what makes anyone think they'll actually be good? 17-10-5 is a solid record. The problem is that Cornell was not a 17-10-5 team, as its goal differential demonstrates.

The #2 thing strengthens my argument: all you need to do is get in. When we were the best team, we always got in.

^^ Goal differential probably is a better indication of lop-sided scores and overall offensive explosiveness than winning.

Noooooooooooo. This is NOT correct--in fact the total opposite is true.


I think Cornell will be fine next year. My argument is, as it has always been, that an improved ECAC is not something we want. It just doesn't work out that way when game win % is such a massive component of the PWR. And that's not even considering all of the potential Cornell recruits U, Q, and Y are eating up.

You know what's weird? Despite being in (arguably) the strongest conference, we're tied for 16th in the pairwise and have the 13th best record.

I was not at all surprised by the outcome... but I was actually pleasantly surprised by Cornell's performance. Union was clearly the superior team going into this game, but it didn't feel like Cornell was outclassed talent-wise. The problems I saw boil down to two things: (1) Cornell made more mistakes on defense, and (2) Union created more scoring opportunities.

To the second point, one thing I liked about Union was how they always had some guy trailing the man going in deep on the chase: if that guy got to the puck first, he just dinked it back to the teammate he knew was there behind him, which led to at least one goal and several other great opportunities in the slot and right around the crease.

Until Cornell got tired late in the third, I felt like their breakouts and passing were just as good as Union's, and I would be willing to bet puck possession time was similar for both teams. The difference was that Union created scoring opportunities when they had the puck deep in our zone, whereas Cornell's approach seems mostly to be "get it in the zone and pray something good happens"... which, as it so happens, sounds an awful lot like their ineffective power play, as well.

I feel like the D will improve next year, but their biggest hurdle IMO is creating more scoring opportunities.

BearLover

^^ Goal differential probably is a better indication of lop-sided scores and overall offensive explosiveness than winning.

Noooooooooooo. This is NOT correct--in fact the total opposite is true.

I looked at the NHL standings to get another view, point taken, I retract that statement. Teams like Philly and Montreal have very average goal differentials and are in position to make the playoffs but certainly the true Cup contenders all seem to have +40-70 goal differentials. Philly could do some damage but I'll be shocked (and dismayed!) if they win. But there's a pretty damned strong correlation between goal differential and standings position.

I'm still going to go to bed believing that Cornell was 17-10-5, though.

Kyle Rose
I was not at all surprised by the outcome... but I was actually pleasantly surprised by Cornell's performance. Union was clearly the superior team going into this game, but it didn't feel like Cornell was outclassed talent-wise. The problems I saw boil down to two things: (1) Cornell made more mistakes on defense, and (2) Union created more scoring opportunities.

To the second point, one thing I liked about Union was how they always had some guy trailing the man going in deep on the chase: if that guy got to the puck first, he just dinked it back to the teammate he knew was there behind him, which led to at least one goal and several other great opportunities in the slot and right around the crease.

Until Cornell got tired late in the third, I felt like their breakouts and passing were just as good as Union's, and I would be willing to bet puck possession time was similar for both teams. The difference was that Union created scoring opportunities when they had the puck deep in our zone, whereas Cornell's approach seems mostly to be "get it in the zone and pray something good happens"... which, as it so happens, sounds an awful lot like their ineffective power play, as well.

I feel like the D will improve next year, but their biggest hurdle IMO is creating more scoring opportunities.

I think you nailed it -- Union just better at getting higher quality scoring chances.

When we got to within 3-2, I really thought we had a great chance to pull it out. Giving up that goal on the next shift was just a back-breaker.

*sigh*.

scoop85

Kyle Rose
I was not at all surprised by the outcome... but I was actually pleasantly surprised by Cornell's performance. Union was clearly the superior team going into this game, but it didn't feel like Cornell was outclassed talent-wise. The problems I saw boil down to two things: (1) Cornell made more mistakes on defense, and (2) Union created more scoring opportunities.

To the second point, one thing I liked about Union was how they always had some guy trailing the man going in deep on the chase: if that guy got to the puck first, he just dinked it back to the teammate he knew was there behind him, which led to at least one goal and several other great opportunities in the slot and right around the crease.

Until Cornell got tired late in the third, I felt like their breakouts and passing were just as good as Union's, and I would be willing to bet puck possession time was similar for both teams. The difference was that Union created scoring opportunities when they had the puck deep in our zone, whereas Cornell's approach seems mostly to be "get it in the zone and pray something good happens"... which, as it so happens, sounds an awful lot like their ineffective power play, as well.

I feel like the D will improve next year, but their biggest hurdle IMO is creating more scoring opportunities.

I think you nailed it -- Union just better at getting higher quality scoring chances.

When we got to within 3-2, I really thought we had a great chance to pull it out. Giving up that goal on the next shift was just a back-breaker.

Agreed. We played a really, really good second period. To go 2-2 in that period hurt.

But I felt like we skated well with Union, weren't that far behind in possession time and chances (though Union did a better job clogging on D against our chances), and generally felt like we belonged. Solid effort against a better team.

Union was clearly the better team. The way they answered our goals in the second told me that it was a hopeless cause. Union simply was NOT going to allow a loss and they have the talent to make it happen.

for all the union is better and they are. still if we score on the PP and not union on theirs its a 3-3 game late.. the early post didnt help. isles let a somewhat soft goal get in early as well. the 2nd we dominated for most but we still left it down 2. not a bad effort, the better team won.

redice
Union simply was NOT going to allow a loss and they have the talent to make it happen.

I think it's more likely they had the coaching to make it happen. Union appears to have set-plays designed specifically to create scoring opportunities where the D or the goaltender is caught out of position. No, they don't work every time, but they don't have to. Cornell doesn't seem to do this: they have a system on defense, and hope/hustle on offense.

The advantage of surprise always goes to the guy with the puck, so (combined with the fact that at least one goal is required to win a game) it's critical to use that advantage in a systematic way.

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Kyle Rose


To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Maybe so... But, it would appear that the people choosing the all-star teams/Hobey Baker don't necessarily agree on your talent comparison. I believe Union players are doing quite nicely in consideration for post-season awards. I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

redice

Kyle Rose


To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Maybe so... But, it would appear that the people choosing the all-star teams/Hobey Baker don't necessarily agree on your talent comparison. I believe Union players are doing quite nicely in consideration for post-season awards. I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I think it's impossible to adequately separate individual performance from the performance of an entire team. If anything, disciplined play within a system will necessarily tend to suppress those qualities that make a single individual stand out.

What I witnessed yesterday was disciplined play on both sides, but only for an incomplete part of Cornell's offensive game. With the exception of #14's remarkable two-way speed, I didn't see any Union players owning the ice or hot-dogging or making sick moves to get the drop on Cornell defenders. I saw good players doing their jobs within an offensive system that generated a ton of scoring chances against a good defense. The ones who get the accolades in such a system are those who net the goals and assists: that system makes those players look better than they would be without that leadership, and better than great players being individual heroes in undisciplined play. (Ever play hockey against a mediocre team with one ringer? Being too good for your own team is a net-negative.)

Nobody's going to pay a lot of attention to better-than-average players on a team that doesn't produce unless they really dominate: Ferlin, for instance, is really good at puck control, but you don't give individual league awards for puck control. You give them to individuals whose performances materially improve game outcomes and standings.

There may in fact be a talent gap, but it was not obvious and anyway that is not what lost the game for Cornell yesterday.

Kyle Rose

redice

Kyle Rose


To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Maybe so... But, it would appear that the people choosing the all-star teams/Hobey Baker don't necessarily agree on your talent comparison. I believe Union players are doing quite nicely in consideration for post-season awards. I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I think it's impossible to adequately separate individual performance from the performance of an entire team. If anything, disciplined play within a system will necessarily tend to suppress those qualities that make a single individual stand out.

What I witnessed yesterday was disciplined play on both sides, but only for an incomplete part of Cornell's offensive game. With the exception of #14's remarkable two-way speed, I didn't see any Union players owning the ice or hot-dogging or making sick moves to get the drop on Cornell defenders. I saw good players doing their jobs within an offensive system that generated a ton of scoring chances against a good defense. The ones who get the accolades in such a system are those who net the goals and assists: that system makes those players look better than they would be without that leadership, and better than great players being individual heroes in undisciplined play. (Ever play hockey against a mediocre team with one ringer? Being too good for your own team is a net-negative.)

Nobody's going to pay a lot of attention to better-than-average players on a team that doesn't produce unless they really dominate: Ferlin, for instance, is really good at puck control, but you don't give individual league awards for puck control. You give them to individuals whose performances materially improve game outcomes and standings.

There may in fact be a talent gap, but it was not obvious and anyway that is not what lost the game for Cornell yesterday.

You are entitled to your perceptions, as I am to mine. But, I have seen these situations play out too many times. I'm telling you that, if Cornell had thrown down the gauntlet & scored 6 goals, I'd bet money on Union finding a way to score 7 or more. No way to prove that. But, cream rises to the top. In this case, "cream" & "talent" are synonymous. Since this is just a matter of opinion and we all know about opinions, I'm out. Go ahead and have the last word by stating your opinion as fact. I'm cool with that, Kyle. TTFN

redice

Kyle Rose

redice

Kyle Rose


To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Maybe so... But, it would appear that the people choosing the all-star teams/Hobey Baker don't necessarily agree on your talent comparison. I believe Union players are doing quite nicely in consideration for post-season awards. I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I think it's impossible to adequately separate individual performance from the performance of an entire team. If anything, disciplined play within a system will necessarily tend to suppress those qualities that make a single individual stand out.

What I witnessed yesterday was disciplined play on both sides, but only for an incomplete part of Cornell's offensive game. With the exception of #14's remarkable two-way speed, I didn't see any Union players owning the ice or hot-dogging or making sick moves to get the drop on Cornell defenders. I saw good players doing their jobs within an offensive system that generated a ton of scoring chances against a good defense. The ones who get the accolades in such a system are those who net the goals and assists: that system makes those players look better than they would be without that leadership, and better than great players being individual heroes in undisciplined play. (Ever play hockey against a mediocre team with one ringer? Being too good for your own team is a net-negative.)

Nobody's going to pay a lot of attention to better-than-average players on a team that doesn't produce unless they really dominate: Ferlin, for instance, is really good at puck control, but you don't give individual league awards for puck control. You give them to individuals whose performances materially improve game outcomes and standings.

There may in fact be a talent gap, but it was not obvious and anyway that is not what lost the game for Cornell yesterday.

You are entitled to your perceptions, as I am to mine. But, I have seen these situations play out too many times. I'm telling you that, if Cornell had thrown down the gauntlet & scored 6 goals, I'd bet money on Union finding a way to score 7 or more. No way to prove that. But, cream rises to the top. In this case, "cream" & "talent" are synonymous. Since this is just a matter of opinion and we all know about opinions, I'm out. Go ahead and have the last word by stating your opinion as fact. I'm cool with that, Kyle. TTFN

Or we could end this with some facts. Like NHL draft picks:

[collegehockeyinc.com]

Cornell has (had) 7 playing this year. Union? 1.

This fantasy that Cornell has a recruiting gap with any team they lose to has to be dispelled. It's a myth. There is simply no evidence to support it. But please don't let my facts get in the way of your overwhelming opinion.

Kyle Rose

redice

Kyle Rose

redice

Kyle Rose


To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Maybe so... But, it would appear that the people choosing the all-star teams/Hobey Baker don't necessarily agree on your talent comparison. I believe Union players are doing quite nicely in consideration for post-season awards. I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I think it's impossible to adequately separate individual performance from the performance of an entire team. If anything, disciplined play within a system will necessarily tend to suppress those qualities that make a single individual stand out.

What I witnessed yesterday was disciplined play on both sides, but only for an incomplete part of Cornell's offensive game. With the exception of #14's remarkable two-way speed, I didn't see any Union players owning the ice or hot-dogging or making sick moves to get the drop on Cornell defenders. I saw good players doing their jobs within an offensive system that generated a ton of scoring chances against a good defense. The ones who get the accolades in such a system are those who net the goals and assists: that system makes those players look better than they would be without that leadership, and better than great players being individual heroes in undisciplined play. (Ever play hockey against a mediocre team with one ringer? Being too good for your own team is a net-negative.)

Nobody's going to pay a lot of attention to better-than-average players on a team that doesn't produce unless they really dominate: Ferlin, for instance, is really good at puck control, but you don't give individual league awards for puck control. You give them to individuals whose performances materially improve game outcomes and standings.

There may in fact be a talent gap, but it was not obvious and anyway that is not what lost the game for Cornell yesterday.

You are entitled to your perceptions, as I am to mine. But, I have seen these situations play out too many times. I'm telling you that, if Cornell had thrown down the gauntlet & scored 6 goals, I'd bet money on Union finding a way to score 7 or more. No way to prove that. But, cream rises to the top. In this case, "cream" & "talent" are synonymous. Since this is just a matter of opinion and we all know about opinions, I'm out. Go ahead and have the last word by stating your opinion as fact. I'm cool with that, Kyle. TTFN

Or we could end this with some facts. Like NHL draft picks:

[collegehockeyinc.com]

Cornell has (had) 7 playing this year. Union? 1.

This fantasy that Cornell has a recruiting gap with any team they lose to has to be dispelled. It's a myth. There is simply no evidence to support it. But please don't let my facts get in the way of your overwhelming opinion.

All of those players were recruited multiple years ago, before Union was any good. Just look at Yale: they were getting nobody until they started winning the past few years, and now they have among the best talent in the ECAC. The recruiting advantage that Cornell has over Union will continue to close.

BearLover

Kyle Rose

redice

Kyle Rose

redice

Kyle Rose


To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

Maybe so... But, it would appear that the people choosing the all-star teams/Hobey Baker don't necessarily agree on your talent comparison. I believe Union players are doing quite nicely in consideration for post-season awards. I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I think it's impossible to adequately separate individual performance from the performance of an entire team. If anything, disciplined play within a system will necessarily tend to suppress those qualities that make a single individual stand out.

What I witnessed yesterday was disciplined play on both sides, but only for an incomplete part of Cornell's offensive game. With the exception of #14's remarkable two-way speed, I didn't see any Union players owning the ice or hot-dogging or making sick moves to get the drop on Cornell defenders. I saw good players doing their jobs within an offensive system that generated a ton of scoring chances against a good defense. The ones who get the accolades in such a system are those who net the goals and assists: that system makes those players look better than they would be without that leadership, and better than great players being individual heroes in undisciplined play. (Ever play hockey against a mediocre team with one ringer? Being too good for your own team is a net-negative.)

Nobody's going to pay a lot of attention to better-than-average players on a team that doesn't produce unless they really dominate: Ferlin, for instance, is really good at puck control, but you don't give individual league awards for puck control. You give them to individuals whose performances materially improve game outcomes and standings.

There may in fact be a talent gap, but it was not obvious and anyway that is not what lost the game for Cornell yesterday.

You are entitled to your perceptions, as I am to mine. But, I have seen these situations play out too many times. I'm telling you that, if Cornell had thrown down the gauntlet & scored 6 goals, I'd bet money on Union finding a way to score 7 or more. No way to prove that. But, cream rises to the top. In this case, "cream" & "talent" are synonymous. Since this is just a matter of opinion and we all know about opinions, I'm out. Go ahead and have the last word by stating your opinion as fact. I'm cool with that, Kyle. TTFN

Or we could end this with some facts. Like NHL draft picks:

[collegehockeyinc.com]

Cornell has (had) 7 playing this year. Union? 1.

This fantasy that Cornell has a recruiting gap with any team they lose to has to be dispelled. It's a myth. There is simply no evidence to support it. But please don't let my facts get in the way of your overwhelming opinion.

All of those players were recruited multiple years ago, before Union was any good. Just look at Yale: they were getting nobody until they started winning the past few years, and now they have among the best talent in the ECAC. The recruiting advantage that Cornell has over Union will continue to close.

Or Union'll be terrible in a few years. There's no real way to know, and going by recent ECAC history, the best teams don't always stay good.

Princeton had a few very good teams recently. This year they went 6-26.

BearLover
All of those players were recruited multiple years ago, before Union was any good.

This is a great illustration of the other problem: no matter what evidence I come up with, someone will decide it isn't good enough to refute their own pet theory. I imagine it's a lot like battling climate change skeptics, or creationists. Now we've got "coaching matters"-deniers.

BearLover
All of those players were recruited multiple years ago, before Union was any good. Just look at Yale: they were getting nobody until they started winning the past few years, and now they have among the best talent in the ECAC. The recruiting advantage that Cornell has over Union will continue to close.

Sure, if Union continues to play at a high level they will likely improve their recruiting prospects going forward. So maybe the Cornell advantage will diminish. That doesn't imply that at the moment Union had better, more talented players than Cornell. Nor does it mean that they will going forward, since recruiting is hardly as exact science.

Draft picks is one mesure of talent, which favors Cornell over Union right now. But drafting is not an exact science either. It's projecting what a kid will be like in a few years. If talent and success were all about draft picks then Harvard would still be dominating the ECAC.

So, the games are over, Union is 2014 ECAC Champs. Congrats to the Dutchmen!

Now, I have to ask if anyone else found the title game on tv? We came home from errands expecting to catch the game in-progress on DirecTV's Ch. 623 ( where the semi's were carried).. All we found on 623 was a floating DirecTV logo. And the game was on no other channel. I wonder who is responsible for this work of wonderment (NOT broadcasting the Title game).

redice
I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I am a big fan of his, but I used to think that he could be manhandled in front of Cornell's net. Not sure if others agree with that assessment. I think he has improved his defensive play. The kid is tough too, he blocked a shot with his facemask against Quinnipiac in their barn. Shook it off on the bench and kept going. To me he's not as good as some of our prior first-team ECAC players like Murray or Ratushny but on par with a player like Steve Wilson.

redice
So, the games are over, Union is 2014 ECAC Champs. Congrats to the Dutchmen!

Now, I have to ask if anyone else found the title game on tv? We came home from errands expecting to catch the game in-progress on DirecTV's Ch. 623 ( where the semi's were carried).. All we found on 623 was a floating DirecTV logo. And the game was on no other channel. I wonder who is responsible for this work of wonderment (NOT broadcasting the Title game).

I found it just where I expected it - Fox Sports Atlantic. And Fox Sports Central had the WCHA final.

RatushnyFan

redice
I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I am a big fan of his, but I used to think that he could be manhandled in front of Cornell's net. Not sure if others agree with that assessment. I think he has improved his defensive play. The kid is tough too, he blocked a shot with his facemask against Quinnipiac in their barn. Shook it off on the bench and kept going. To me he's not as good as some of our prior first-team ECAC players like Murray or Ratushny but on par with a player like Steve Wilson.

Agree on all counts. I really expected him to be All-American this year. But, if he's not first team all-ECAC, I see his chances diminishing. Too bad. He has been so much fun to watch this year and I cannot wait until next.

Jeff Hopkins '82

redice
So, the games are over, Union is 2014 ECAC Champs. Congrats to the Dutchmen!

Now, I have to ask if anyone else found the title game on tv? We came home from errands expecting to catch the game in-progress on DirecTV's Ch. 623 ( where the semi's were carried).. All we found on 623 was a floating DirecTV logo. And the game was on no other channel. I wonder who is responsible for this work of wonderment (NOT broadcasting the Title game).

I found it just where I expected it - Fox Sports Atlantic. And Fox Sports Central had the WCHA final.

Let me guess: You're not on DirecTV?

So, it's on Fox Sports Atlantic as expected (confirmed by you). Which appeared on the DirecTV lineup on Friday night and disappeared on Saturday!! Those RAT BASTARDS!!!

I went through this once, in the 90's, when we had Primestar. Cornell was in that Title game.... I spent two hours on the phone with those SOB's that night. All to no avail, of course. They even televised the consolation game. Then, cut off the broadcast right as the Title game was to start. Yup, I was pissed!

Kyle Rose

redice
Union simply was NOT going to allow a loss and they have the talent to make it happen.

I think it's more likely they had the coaching to make it happen. Union appears to have set-plays designed specifically to create scoring opportunities where the D or the goaltender is caught out of position. No, they don't work every time, but they don't have to. Cornell doesn't seem to do this: they have a system on defense, and hope/hustle on offense.

The advantage of surprise always goes to the guy with the puck, so (combined with the fact that at least one goal is required to win a game) it's critical to use that advantage in a systematic way.

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

I am not surprised at all by this. I have mentioned it before and a lot of people disagreed with me, but a huge part of Cornell's lack of ultimate success is that players are not developing offensively. I do not see the level of improvement in the offensive zone that I would think should happen when one coaches the talent of a Ferlin, Lowry, Bardreau, etc. And I daresay that some of them have actually regressed offensively.

MattS

Kyle Rose

redice
Union simply was NOT going to allow a loss and they have the talent to make it happen.

I think it's more likely they had the coaching to make it happen. Union appears to have set-plays designed specifically to create scoring opportunities where the D or the goaltender is caught out of position. No, they don't work every time, but they don't have to. Cornell doesn't seem to do this: they have a system on defense, and hope/hustle on offense.

The advantage of surprise always goes to the guy with the puck, so (combined with the fact that at least one goal is required to win a game) it's critical to use that advantage in a systematic way.

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

I am not surprised at all by this. I have mentioned it before and a lot of people disagreed with me, but a huge part of Cornell's lack of ultimate success is that players are not developing offensively. I do not see the level of improvement in the offensive zone that I would think should happen when one coaches the talent of a Ferlin, Lowry, Bardreau, etc. And I daresay that some of them have actually regressed offensively.

Yep. No offensive skill whatsoever on any recent Cornell teams. When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke or a great passing play?

redice

Jeff Hopkins '82

redice
So, the games are over, Union is 2014 ECAC Champs. Congrats to the Dutchmen!

Now, I have to ask if anyone else found the title game on tv? We came home from errands expecting to catch the game in-progress on DirecTV's Ch. 623 ( where the semi's were carried).. All we found on 623 was a floating DirecTV logo. And the game was on no other channel. I wonder who is responsible for this work of wonderment (NOT broadcasting the Title game).

I found it just where I expected it - Fox Sports Atlantic. And Fox Sports Central had the WCHA final.

Let me guess: You're not on DirecTV?

Nope. Service Electric Cable TV, a family owned cable company in Allentown. In fact, the first cable company in the US.

I pay extra for their sports package, just so I get college hockey in the winter and lax in the spring.

BearLover

MattS

Kyle Rose

redice
Union simply was NOT going to allow a loss and they have the talent to make it happen.

I think it's more likely they had the coaching to make it happen. Union appears to have set-plays designed specifically to create scoring opportunities where the D or the goaltender is caught out of position. No, they don't work every time, but they don't have to. Cornell doesn't seem to do this: they have a system on defense, and hope/hustle on offense.

The advantage of surprise always goes to the guy with the puck, so (combined with the fact that at least one goal is required to win a game) it's critical to use that advantage in a systematic way.

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

I am not surprised at all by this. I have mentioned it before and a lot of people disagreed with me, but a huge part of Cornell's lack of ultimate success is that players are not developing offensively. I do not see the level of improvement in the offensive zone that I would think should happen when one coaches the talent of a Ferlin, Lowry, Bardreau, etc. And I daresay that some of them have actually regressed offensively.

Yep. No offensive skill whatsoever on any recent Cornell teams. When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke or a great passing play?

I'll grant you there weren't many this year, but Buckles' tying goal against Harvard off the nice Kubiak feed was awfully pretty

FWIW, there's a replay on Fox Sports Atlantic right now - 6 PM Sunday eve.

I don't follow the stats real closely. But, I do believe we are getting our asses kicked in the face-off circle on a fairly regular basis. I don't know if Joe N. is stopping by to help with this problem. But, when he did in the past, CU improved greatly in that department. It would help the offensive game a lot to start out more plays with the puck in our possession. The last I heard, Joe is still between jobs and living in Tompkins County.

scoop85

BearLover

MattS

Kyle Rose

redice
Union simply was NOT going to allow a loss and they have the talent to make it happen.

I think it's more likely they had the coaching to make it happen. Union appears to have set-plays designed specifically to create scoring opportunities where the D or the goaltender is caught out of position. No, they don't work every time, but they don't have to. Cornell doesn't seem to do this: they have a system on defense, and hope/hustle on offense.

The advantage of surprise always goes to the guy with the puck, so (combined with the fact that at least one goal is required to win a game) it's critical to use that advantage in a systematic way.

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

I am not surprised at all by this. I have mentioned it before and a lot of people disagreed with me, but a huge part of Cornell's lack of ultimate success is that players are not developing offensively. I do not see the level of improvement in the offensive zone that I would think should happen when one coaches the talent of a Ferlin, Lowry, Bardreau, etc. And I daresay that some of them have actually regressed offensively.

Yep. No offensive skill whatsoever on any recent Cornell teams. When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke or a great passing play?

I'll grant you there weren't many this year, but Buckles' tying goal against Harvard off the nice Kubiak feed was awfully pretty

It was a good goal, but it wasn't exactly a great passing play, just a one-timer on a fast break IIRC.

Cornell-Union 3/21/14 Highlights:

[www.youtube.com]

Colgate-Union 3/22/14 Highlights

[www.youtube.com]

BearLover

MattS

Kyle Rose

redice
Union simply was NOT going to allow a loss and they have the talent to make it happen.

I think it's more likely they had the coaching to make it happen. Union appears to have set-plays designed specifically to create scoring opportunities where the D or the goaltender is caught out of position. No, they don't work every time, but they don't have to. Cornell doesn't seem to do this: they have a system on defense, and hope/hustle on offense.

The advantage of surprise always goes to the guy with the puck, so (combined with the fact that at least one goal is required to win a game) it's critical to use that advantage in a systematic way.

To be clear, I did not see a huge talent gap in yesterday's game, but I did see a huge difference in how effective each team was when they had possession of the puck deep in the offensive zone. Union had a lot more opportunities to score because their whole team knew what scoring play they were going to try when they got possession of the puck in a particular situation.

I am not surprised at all by this. I have mentioned it before and a lot of people disagreed with me, but a huge part of Cornell's lack of ultimate success is that players are not developing offensively. I do not see the level of improvement in the offensive zone that I would think should happen when one coaches the talent of a Ferlin, Lowry, Bardreau, etc. And I daresay that some of them have actually regressed offensively.

Yep. No offensive skill whatsoever on any recent Cornell teams. When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke or a great passing play?

I do not care about how amazing the deke or passing play is. I would just like to watch a game where I feel like if the opposing team scores more than 2 goals, Cornell still has a chance to win. And I would like to see some creativity and an actual plan for the offense. Baring that, I would settle for: A) Having Ferlin create a real scoring chance with his skating/puck handling ability and B) someone (Hilbrich maybe) regularly drive to the net and get some rebound chances.

I willingly accept the cutback on offense when it's accompanied by tight defense. The problem recently has been the GFA and GAA have converged.

If we can get back above GF/(GF+GA) = .60, I don't care if we skate in cement and average 2.2 goals per game.

RatushnyFan

redice
I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I am a big fan of his, but I used to think that he could be manhandled in front of Cornell's net. Not sure if others agree with that assessment. I think he has improved his defensive play. The kid is tough too, he blocked a shot with his facemask against Quinnipiac in their barn. Shook it off on the bench and kept going. To me he's not as good as some of our prior first-team ECAC players like Murray or Ratushny but on par with a player like Steve Wilson.

I'd compare him to Mark McRae. Great natural talent and dedicated worker; had to learn to be a little restrained to respect his defensive duties, but has developed into the best blueliner on the team.

I was also surprised he wasn't 1st team all-ECAC.

I'll say only one thing that could be construed as negative. He quarterbacks the pp and the pp is horrible. I don't lay it solely at his feet (skates?), but star players do shine in those situations. Had we an effective pp this season could have been considerably better.

Trotsky

RatushnyFan

redice
I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I am a big fan of his, but I used to think that he could be manhandled in front of Cornell's net. Not sure if others agree with that assessment. I think he has improved his defensive play. The kid is tough too, he blocked a shot with his facemask against Quinnipiac in their barn. Shook it off on the bench and kept going. To me he's not as good as some of our prior first-team ECAC players like Murray or Ratushny but on par with a player like Steve Wilson.

I'd compare him to Mark McRae. Great natural talent and dedicated worker; had to learn to be a little restrained to respect his defensive duties, but has developed into the best blueliner on the team.

I was also surprised he wasn't 1st team all-ECAC.

I'll say only one thing that could be construed as negative. He quarterbacks the pp and the pp is horrible. I don't lay it solely at his feet (skates?), but star players do shine in those situations. Had we an effective pp this season could have been considerably better.

I agree with your assessment of the PP and how it negatively effects the perception of Ryan. Like you said it's not all his fault, I think a ton of that blame needs to be on the coaching staff. The PP has been bad for quite a while now and nothing has/is changing. But it is the players on the ice that get blamed more than the coaches when it comes to awards.

I think one think that gets overlooked with Ryan's offensive side is the excellent play by Wilcox that allows him to pinch and be offensive minded knowing that Wilcox is steady on the defensive end. Wilcox's play has alleviated the need for Ryan to become more and more defensively minded.

MattS
I think one think that gets overlooked with Ryan's offensive side is the excellent play by Wilcox that allows him to pinch and be offensive minded knowing that Wilcox is steady on the defensive end. Wilcox's play has alleviated the need for Ryan to become more and more defensively minded.

Behind (literally) every great offensive defenseman is a great defensive defenseman who can cover for him. Wilcox is one and it looks like Lewis will be the next. While we rightfully criticize the coaching staff for their problems in designing effective set plays and adapting the powerplay, it has been nice to not worry about the defense for the last 20 years.

Trotsky

MattS
I think one think that gets overlooked with Ryan's offensive side is the excellent play by Wilcox that allows him to pinch and be offensive minded knowing that Wilcox is steady on the defensive end. Wilcox's play has alleviated the need for Ryan to become more and more defensively minded.

Behind (literally) every great offensive defenseman is a great defensive defenseman who can cover for him. Wilcox is one and it looks like Lewis will be the next. While we rightfully criticize the coaching staff for their problems in designing effective set plays and adapting the powerplay, it has been nice to not worry about the defense for the last 20 years.

I totally agree about Lewis. For a freshman I didn't really notice him when he's out on the ice which in my opinion is a very good thing for a defenseman.

This:

BearLover
When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent. Union was so effective not because of individual heroics like this, but rather because their team played like a team, set up plays intended to create scoring chances, and executed well.

Time to add Willcox to the Speling Guide?

Kyle Rose
This:

BearLover
When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent.

Yeah, because those type of goals are never scored by any team at any level!

MattS

Kyle Rose
This:

BearLover
When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent.

Yeah, because those type of goals are never scored by any team at any level!

The point is not that these goals never happen, only that they are unpredictable enough against skilled opponents not to be relied upon to win games. A good coach doesn't say, "Our game plan is: you, you, and you go out there, make a sick move, and score, and you, go out there and score on a breakaway. Defense, keep it to 3 GA, and we've got this in the bag." No, what a good coach does is set up and practice plays that reliably have an X% chance of resulting in a goal over a large enough number of tries.

Kyle Rose

MattS

Kyle Rose
This:

BearLover
When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent.

Yeah, because those type of goals are never scored by any team at any level!

The point is not that these goals never happen, only that they are unpredictable enough against skilled opponents not to be relied upon to win games. A good coach doesn't say, "Our game plan is: you, you, and you go out there, make a sick move, and score, and you, go out there and score on a breakaway. Defense, keep it to 3 GA, and we've got this in the bag." No, what a good coach does is set up and practice plays that reliably have an X% chance of resulting in a goal over a large enough number of tries.

We've had a few guys through the years who had the skating and stick handling skills to make some pretyy nice moves with the puck. You know what usually happeed? A couple defenders converged on the guy and made it impossible to get to the net.

It's fun to see that kind of play when it actually works. But a well designed and executed team offense with passing and positioning is better and more effective overall.

Kyle Rose

MattS

Kyle Rose
This:

BearLover
When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent.

Yeah, because those type of goals are never scored by any team at any level!

The point is not that these goals never happen, only that they are unpredictable enough against skilled opponents not to be relied upon to win games. A good coach doesn't say, "Our game plan is: you, you, and you go out there, make a sick move, and score, and you, go out there and score on a breakaway. Defense, keep it to 3 GA, and we've got this in the bag." No, what a good coach does is set up and practice plays that reliably have an X% chance of resulting in a goal over a large enough number of tries.

So unpredictability = bush-league?

I understand what you are getting at with regards to predictability and don't disagree. I just do not understand the bush-league portion of your post. I am confident I have watch many similar plays (a great deke) in various high level hockey leagues that I would not call bush.

KeithK

Kyle Rose

MattS

Kyle Rose
This:

BearLover
When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent.

Yeah, because those type of goals are never scored by any team at any level!

The point is not that these goals never happen, only that they are unpredictable enough against skilled opponents not to be relied upon to win games. A good coach doesn't say, "Our game plan is: you, you, and you go out there, make a sick move, and score, and you, go out there and score on a breakaway. Defense, keep it to 3 GA, and we've got this in the bag." No, what a good coach does is set up and practice plays that reliably have an X% chance of resulting in a goal over a large enough number of tries.

We've had a few guys through the years who had the skating and stick handling skills to make some pretyy nice moves with the puck. You know what usually happeed? A couple defenders converged on the guy and made it impossible to get to the net.

It's fun to see that kind of play when it actually works. But a well designed and executed team offense with passing and positioning is better and more effective overall.

Tony Romano comes to mind immediately. He didn't like it so much.

MattS
So unpredictability = bush-league?

No. A league bad enough for a player to regularly get away with that shit = bush league.

MattS

Kyle Rose

MattS

Kyle Rose
This:

BearLover
When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent.

Yeah, because those type of goals are never scored by any team at any level!

The point is not that these goals never happen, only that they are unpredictable enough against skilled opponents not to be relied upon to win games. A good coach doesn't say, "Our game plan is: you, you, and you go out there, make a sick move, and score, and you, go out there and score on a breakaway. Defense, keep it to 3 GA, and we've got this in the bag." No, what a good coach does is set up and practice plays that reliably have an X% chance of resulting in a goal over a large enough number of tries.

So unpredictability = bush-league?

I understand what you are getting at with regards to predictability and don't disagree. I just do not understand the bush-league portion of your post. I am confident I have watch many similar plays (a great deke) in various high level hockey leagues that I would not call bush.

What he's saying is that spectacular goals are nice - amazing, even - but do not constitute a game plan. Building a team around superlative pure talent is not a coaching strategy or even a particularly viable recruiting plan for Cornell. Kyle is saying that offensive cohesion is a coachable skill that Schafer seems to be falling short in.

I have not watched enough to comment either way. Thus concludes today's episode of Translating Kyle in Good Faith.

ugarte

MattS

Kyle Rose

MattS

Kyle Rose
This:

BearLover
When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent.

Yeah, because those type of goals are never scored by any team at any level!

The point is not that these goals never happen, only that they are unpredictable enough against skilled opponents not to be relied upon to win games. A good coach doesn't say, "Our game plan is: you, you, and you go out there, make a sick move, and score, and you, go out there and score on a breakaway. Defense, keep it to 3 GA, and we've got this in the bag." No, what a good coach does is set up and practice plays that reliably have an X% chance of resulting in a goal over a large enough number of tries.

So unpredictability = bush-league?

I understand what you are getting at with regards to predictability and don't disagree. I just do not understand the bush-league portion of your post. I am confident I have watch many similar plays (a great deke) in various high level hockey leagues that I would not call bush.

What he's saying is that spectacular goals are nice - amazing, even - but do not constitute a game plan. Building a team around superlative pure talent is not a coaching strategy or even a particularly viable recruiting plan for Cornell. Kyle is saying that offensive cohesion is a coachable skill that Schafer seems to be falling short in.

I have not watched enough to comment either way. Thus concludes today's episode of Translating Kyle in Good Faith.

I'm Kyle Rose, and I approve this message.

Kyle Rose

MattS
So unpredictability = bush-league?

No. A league bad enough for a player to regularly get away with that shit = bush league.

I see. I got it now. That I can agree with.

Kyle Rose
This:

BearLover
When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent. Union was so effective not because of individual heroics like this, but rather because their team played like a team, set up plays intended to create scoring chances, and executed well.

Who said you had to build your gameplan around deking out your opponent? Are players not supposed to try to get around a defender when they're 1-on-1? What would you recommend they do, just barrel through the guy? I'd recommend they try a few bush-league tactics. Yale sure scored a lot of goals en route to a national championship with these bush-league maneuvers! I saw Crosby set up a goal off a sick deke the other night. The ref disallowed it, due to it being bush-league.

BearLover

Kyle Rose
This:

BearLover
When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent. Union was so effective not because of individual heroics like this, but rather because their team played like a team, set up plays intended to create scoring chances, and executed well.

Who said you had to build your gameplan around deking out your opponent? Are players not supposed to try to get around a defender when they're 1-on-1? What would you recommend they do, just barrel through the guy? I'd recommend they try a few bush-league tactics. Yale sure scored a lot of goals en route to a national championship with these bush-league maneuvers! I saw Crosby set up a goal off a sick deke the other night. The ref disallowed it, due to it being bush-league.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who don't actually read. Go pick a fight with someone else.

ugarte

MattS

Kyle Rose

MattS

Kyle Rose
This:

BearLover
When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent.

Yeah, because those type of goals are never scored by any team at any level!

The point is not that these goals never happen, only that they are unpredictable enough against skilled opponents not to be relied upon to win games. A good coach doesn't say, "Our game plan is: you, you, and you go out there, make a sick move, and score, and you, go out there and score on a breakaway. Defense, keep it to 3 GA, and we've got this in the bag." No, what a good coach does is set up and practice plays that reliably have an X% chance of resulting in a goal over a large enough number of tries.

So unpredictability = bush-league?

I understand what you are getting at with regards to predictability and don't disagree. I just do not understand the bush-league portion of your post. I am confident I have watch many similar plays (a great deke) in various high level hockey leagues that I would not call bush.

What he's saying is that spectacular goals are nice - amazing, even - but do not constitute a game plan. Building a team around superlative pure talent is not a coaching strategy or even a particularly viable recruiting plan for Cornell. Kyle is saying that offensive cohesion is a coachable skill that Schafer seems to be falling short in.

I have not watched enough to comment either way. Thus concludes today's episode of Translating Kyle in Good Faith.

Anyone else remember "Sermonette"?

Trotsky

RatushnyFan

redice
I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I am a big fan of his, but I used to think that he could be manhandled in front of Cornell's net. Not sure if others agree with that assessment. I think he has improved his defensive play. The kid is tough too, he blocked a shot with his facemask against Quinnipiac in their barn. Shook it off on the bench and kept going. To me he's not as good as some of our prior first-team ECAC players like Murray or Ratushny but on par with a player like Steve Wilson.

I'd compare him to Mark McRae. Great natural talent and dedicated worker; had to learn to be a little restrained to respect his defensive duties, but has developed into the best blueliner on the team.

I was also surprised he wasn't 1st team all-ECAC.

I'll say only one thing that could be construed as negative. He quarterbacks the pp and the pp is horrible. I don't lay it solely at his feet (skates?), but star players do shine in those situations. Had we an effective pp this season could have been considerably better.

What I love most about Ryan is his ability to create space. Whether its by great vision or proper anticipation, he opens up the ice on both sides when he has possession more than anybody else I can remember. While Ferlin uses his body and strength to protect the puck and maintain possession, Ryan does so by getting it to "where-they-ain't." And while he doesn't have the booming cannon that players like Murray had, he's just plain accurate with the puck. He's the most complete defensemen we've had in recent years.

RichH
Ryan does so by getting it to "where-they-ain't." And while he doesn't have the booming cannon that players like Murray had, he's just plain accurate with the puck. He's the most complete defensemen we've had in recent years.

In LP we had a great angle to see how Ryan sets up plays where he has many options -- either the slow slide to the opposite point to draw the coverage or the quickie pass down low to set up a cross-crease pass, or the sneaky screen shot to the far corner. Union covered all of these options perfectly because Union is a helluva good team, but Ryan's decision-making and execution were terrific. He's a good player and he can destroy a less vigilant opponent. I really hope he comes back.

Kyle Rose

BearLover

Kyle Rose
This:

BearLover
When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent. Union was so effective not because of individual heroics like this, but rather because their team played like a team, set up plays intended to create scoring chances, and executed well.

Who said you had to build your gameplan around deking out your opponent? Are players not supposed to try to get around a defender when they're 1-on-1? What would you recommend they do, just barrel through the guy? I'd recommend they try a few bush-league tactics. Yale sure scored a lot of goals en route to a national championship with these bush-league maneuvers! I saw Crosby set up a goal off a sick deke the other night. The ref disallowed it, due to it being bush-league.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who don't actually read. Go pick a fight with someone else.

My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent. "Bush-league" offensive moves are a significant part of offensive talent, even if they do not in themselves constitute a gameplan. I really don't know what you're even saying.

BearLover
My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.

Ferlin, Ryan, Bardreau, Lowry, Mowrey, both McCarrons, Buckles and Hilbrich are all offensively talented in various ways. MacDonald and Weidner seemed to be developing offensively as the season waned. Pure talent isn't the problem.

Trotsky

BearLover
My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.

Ferlin, Ryan, Bardreau, Lowry, Mowrey, both McCarrons, Buckles and Hilbrich are all offensively talented in various ways. MacDonald and Weidner seemed to be developing offensively as the season waned. Pure talent isn't the problem.

Fair point. I guess I meant more that the team as a whole has little coordinated offensive talent, which is likely a problem of coaching. Still, even when those guys are on the ice, Cornell seriously struggles to create chances. They look sluggish, they can't open up passing lanes, etc.

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover
My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.

Ferlin, Ryan, Bardreau, Lowry, Mowrey, both McCarrons, Buckles and Hilbrich are all offensively talented in various ways. MacDonald and Weidner seemed to be developing offensively as the season waned. Pure talent isn't the problem.

Fair point. I guess I meant more that the team as a whole has little coordinated offensive talent, which is likely a problem of coaching. Still, even when those guys are on the ice, Cornell seriously struggles to create chances. They look sluggish, they can't open up passing lanes, etc.

This is exactly Kyle's point you belligerent nut.

ugarte

BearLover

Trotsky

BearLover
My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.

Ferlin, Ryan, Bardreau, Lowry, Mowrey, both McCarrons, Buckles and Hilbrich are all offensively talented in various ways. MacDonald and Weidner seemed to be developing offensively as the season waned. Pure talent isn't the problem.

Fair point. I guess I meant more that the team as a whole has little coordinated offensive talent, which is likely a problem of coaching. Still, even when those guys are on the ice, Cornell seriously struggles to create chances. They look sluggish, they can't open up passing lanes, etc.

This is exactly Kyle's point you belligerent nut.

?

I don't care what his point was; I was responding to his absurd response to my initial post.

BearLover
My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.

It has more than Union, at least according to people who have skin in the game (NHL scouts). I repeat: there is simply no evidence that a lack of talent ("the recruiting gap" ) is Cornell's problem.

Kyle Rose

BearLover
My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.

It has more than Union, at least according to people who have skin in the game (NHL scouts). I repeat: there is simply no evidence that a lack of talent ("the recruiting gap" ) is Cornell's problem.

I would go even further and say *developing* individual offensive talent is not a meaningful issue, either. I believe the perception of players regressing offensively is actually a matter of seeing guys with tons of potential develop into a system that artificially limits offensive production.

While reading your earlier post about Union's set plays in the offensive end I realized something - with the possible exception of 2003, I can't think of a Cornell team under Schafer that has consistently executed that kind of offensive zone plan. A few top lines here and there, sure, but never the top two and certainly not all four. Apart from the "pick everybody off the draw" play Cornell generally seems to rely on just wearing the other team out. This certainly fits my memory of 2002 - that team dominated on the cycle and was deadly on the power play, but IIRC they had one of the worst even strength scoring offenses in the country. Even strength wasn't about generating chances from superior positioning, it was about dominating possession in the corner and waiting for the opposition to make a mistake. When your third and fourth lines are grinding eternally in the corners and getting a handful of opportunistic chances in front that's amazing. When your top lines are doing it that means you have very little margin for error unless you have a strong power play and you hold the puck for a very long time. Cornell had both of those things in 2002, and the result was an incredible season to build up to 2003.

The 2003 team felt a lot more opportunistic out of the cycle, and that might be because they were running more of these sets to generate chances. If that was the case, I wonder to what extent this is a reflection of Coach Schafer's conservatism rather than an actual lack of ability to design or teach these things. There's a limit to how much you can teach during a hockey season, and Schafer's teams always learn defensive responsibility first. It might be that the offensive zone sets don't come until the team buys into the rest of the system, and they only work that stuff once they're consistently generating that cycle and maintaining defensively sound positioning. If you have a couple of recruiting classes that don't buy in you get a 4 year down cycle where you basically have no offense. Another possibility, of course, is that the assistants during that period were better at managing the offensive zone plan, and it really does come down to the "offensive coordinator" role in the coaching staff. I don't pretend to know, but certainly the teams I've seen on TV in recent years - even when they were putting on that cycling clinic against UNH - didn't seem to use set plays that reliably got the puck to the net.

Tom Lento
It might be that the offensive zone sets don't come until the team buys into the rest of the system, and they only work that stuff once they're consistently generating that cycle and maintaining defensively sound positioning.

As good a point as any to mention that we have at least two lines that I see no reason to change after this season:

Lowry    — Kubiak   — McCarron
Hilbrich — Bardreau — Ferlin

Besides the notion that we seem to be running a right-wing lock rather than a left-wing lock these days, given that the offensive talent is on the right of each line, these are essentially our first two lines next year if Ferlin sticks around, which I think he will. Kubiak needs to work on his faceoffs, but he seems a very responsible center defensively (and a future captain, IMHO). I might switch Hilbrich and Lowry to better balance the offensive capabilities of each line, but these are quibbles. Our first two lines for next year are set. They did set up effective cycles, and they're pretty responsible defensively. Hopefully next year they can work on offense, offense, offense!

What we lose from this year, or, perhaps, what we never really had in any case, was a true checking line. This year was abysmal. The "system" I want to see come back on this team is the checking line takes the puck, delivers it to the offensive end, cycles for a bit and produces a shot on goal, and then gets the hell off the ice for the ensuing faceoff. Yeah, once in a while that shot might go in, but I don't really care too much if it does. With the talent coming in and remaining on the team, I think we'll develop a pretty good 3rd line next year; whether or not we develop a checking line depends on a few of these talented folks sacrificing and working hard on doing one most important thing—shutting down the opposition's top line so the other three lines don't have to.

PS And Nieuwy needs to visit and work the magic he did with the '96–'97 centers. Man, we need to learn how to win faceoffs.

redice
So, the games are over, Union is 2014 ECAC Champs. Congrats to the Dutchmen!

Now, I have to ask if anyone else found the title game on tv? We came home from errands expecting to catch the game in-progress on DirecTV's Ch. 623 ( where the semi's were carried).. All we found on 623 was a floating DirecTV logo. And the game was on no other channel. I wonder who is responsible for this work of wonderment (NOT broadcasting the Title game).

I have DirecTV. It was on 623-1, the standard-def version of 623. It didn't show up in the guide until Thursday night, but it was there, and still on my DVR if you don't believe me. I also recorded 623 hoping it would be there in HD, but that was just the DirecTV logo you mentioned.

CowbellGuy

redice
So, the games are over, Union is 2014 ECAC Champs. Congrats to the Dutchmen!

Now, I have to ask if anyone else found the title game on tv? We came home from errands expecting to catch the game in-progress on DirecTV's Ch. 623 ( where the semi's were carried).. All we found on 623 was a floating DirecTV logo. And the game was on no other channel. I wonder who is responsible for this work of wonderment (NOT broadcasting the Title game).

I have DirecTV. It was on 623-1, the standard-def version of 623. It didn't show up in the guide until Thursday night, but it was there, and still on my DVR if you don't believe me. I also recorded 623 hoping it would be there in HD, but that was just the DirecTV logo you mentioned.

Thanks, Age.... We didn't have a 623-1 on our box. We don't have an HD box. And, yes, I understood what you said about it coming through as standard-def version on 623-1 on your box. Oh well, CU wasn't in the game, so there was no need for me to rip them a new ass. And, based on what you're saying, they wouldn't have understood. Don't know how it could appear in Standard Def on hour HD box and NOT appear on my Standard box, at all. It gets so tiring trying to figure out what these assholes are doing with the games we want to watch.

Thanks for helping.