Cornells last offensive player

as good as Cornell has been over the last 5-6 yrs its still being down with goal tending and work along the boards.. It just seems hard to believe that year after year we cant produce one offensive weapon. just someone who can take the puck end to end once in awhile.. year after year we might be the slowest team in the league and as much as Coaches system has worked it just seems hard to believe with our record we cant find 1-2 kids with a work ethic to fit the system but also create some chances. not a great chances but someone like a moulson with a little speed...

...like Vesce, perhaps?

[Q] as good as Cornell has been over the last 5-6 yrs its still being down with goal tending and work along the boards [/Q]

Why mess with success?

how about Paolini?

Ah the mythical "sniper" that we've all dreamed about at one point or another. The truth is: it isn't going to happen. Anyone who is an honest-to-goodness end-to-end, jaw-dropping sniper are probably headed to the Juniors for maximum scouting exposure, or also being persued by every large scholarship school. The Chris Drurys, Paul Kariyas, and Zach Parises are really rare, and most don't find their way into the ECAC.

Every so often, the ECAC will snag a true sniper: St. Louis/Perrin, Tapper, Cole, Jeff Hamilton, Higgins.

Others are late-bloomers: Todd White, Cavosie, D. Moore, Halpern.

Other "scorers" are really more "grinders" than "snipers": Andy MacDonald, Paolini, S. Moore, for example.

But really, it's not our style. Schafer has a mold of what players he wants on his team. I think the first weekend vs. WMU showed what happens when the players think about leaving the defensive plan, and coach ripped into them for that. Big two-way forwards have been successful on and for this team.

People love to yearn for the "pretty" finesse hockey that many Western teams have. Me? I'm sold on the defensive approach.

I guess the little guy, Topher, that is coming next year is supposed to be the next Vesce...in the past 5 years we haven't had a Dom Moore or a MacDonald or a St. Louis but how many teams have? Bitz is a special player but is he too big to be that quick weapon you are asking for? Vesce is damn good and he wins so many friggin faceoffs! That's the thing I'm worried about next year...faceoffs. I'm happy to worry about faceoffs.



Post Edited (02-20-04 23:22)

Cam Abbott

Ryan Vesce has 126 points in 127 career games. If he gets one more point than game played from the Union game until the end of the season, he will be the first Cornellian to finish his college career with at least one point per game since Ryan Hughes '93.

I think he has end-to-end-rush talent. Keep in mind that most of Cornell's opponents are sound defensive teams. In today's era, an end-to-end rush would be a rarity even for Bob Bourne. Another factor is Cornell's offensive style of play. If someone tried to dipsy doodle around three opposing players in the defensive and neutral zones, he would draw the ire of the coaching staff. Players are taught to make the highest-percentage play.

[q]year after year we might be the slowest team in the league[/q]

i think that the system demands that our team slow down the oponent... make them play our game not the other way around. we have plenty of fast skaters, and likely one of the best conditioned teams in the ECAC, if not the NCAA. we are not slow, we just stop the other teams from being fast.

You don't win championships with one sniper. A system, like Schafer has, is much more likely to keep us near the top year after year. If we had the ability to bring in players like the other 3 main leagues can, then we should go for it. However, since we want to maintain an IVY approach we are never going to get the breadth of talent that they have. I say keep up what works and enjoy it.

Coach Schafer will try and get those players, like Higgins, but there aren't that many around. As an aside, why someone, like Higgins, would want to go to a program wallowing in mediocrity like Yale is beyond me.

[Q]why someone, like Higgins, would want to go to a program wallowing in mediocrity like Yale is beyond me.[/Q]

He must've wanted that Yale diploma...

Perhaps Higgins wasn't going to buy into the Cornell style of play as previously described. That's his problem however.

I agree with a lot of what's been said in this thread but am not quite sure what the "IVY approach" is...and why it precludes nabbing a more skilled scorer, or sniper? Is it the "IVY approach" or the coach's style that dictates the kind of player brought in...I think it's the latter.

I wouldn't call Todd White a "late bloomer" given his 198 points in his career at Clarkson. Only problem he had was a vision defect that was caught and treated after his freshman season and then the big numbers followed.

True. Maybe Higgins wanted to be certain that he would be a superstar on a mediocre team (and take most of the credit for the teams success) rather than be a very good player on a consistently better team. Too bad for him, as he never had a chance to play in the NCAA tourney, much less play at the Frozen Four.



Post Edited (02-22-04 01:17)

Reminds me of the 90s Atlanta Braves pitching staff, when Steve Avery wanted to continue to be an integral part of the rotation, but being the 4th or 5th best starter behind Smoltz, Maddux, and Glavine. Avery wasn't the best thing since sliced bread, but could have been the ace on a number of other teams that couldn't be World Series contenders like the Braves could. Smart move.

I kinda have to disagree here. The pitcher is similar to a goalie. But being that Higgins was not a goalie, I still feel that he could have been one of the "stars" on a Cornell team, like a Vesce or a Moulson. Higgins would have had to work harder, but it's not like a kid with the talent that Higgins had would have been out of the line-up.

RichS wrote:

I wouldn't call Todd White a "late bloomer" given his 198 points in his career at Clarkson. Only problem he had was a vision defect that was caught and treated after his freshman season and then the big numbers followed.

OK, call him a "late exploder" if you want, given that he tallied 75% of those 197 points in his final 2 years. He certainly wasn't very feared as a goal scorer his first 2 years, and his production jump was quite surprising to many around the ECAC. Also, I'm certain his eye surgery came following his sophomore season. It's clearly what made him go from a very good player to an incredible player. Todd White, to me, is the definition of the phrase "late bloomer."

Season   GP  G   A   Pts  Team Rank
1993-94  33  10  11  21      7
1994-95  34  14  16  30      6T
1995-96  38  29  43  72      1
1996-97  37  38  36  74      1

We don't need one pure sniper (although that would always be a nice gift), just consistent scoring depth. Obviously, last year would be the blueprint for winning Cornell hockey. The goalie and defense seem to be in place for another NCAA run. Offensive depth is what is needed. Hopefully, the FR/SO class will help step up the production beyond Moulson and Bitz.

Last season--8 players scored 20+ points
This season--4 players on pace for 20+ points

I took a quick look at Colgate. Most of their sudden success has come because of solid defense/goaltending and just a little more offensive punch, especially from two SO who jumped their point production from 3 and 6 points as FR to 37 and 30 this season.

Minus the Princeton games, Cornell has scored just 56 goals in 25 games. Come NCAA time (I'm being positive), you need to be able to score 4 goals/game to make a big run. Even 3 goals/game with stellar defense/goaltending may not cut it. This team could make noise again with some offensive depth. Three players with (Moulson/Bitz like) offensive talent would help far more than one sniper. Hopefully, we have two FR like Colgate did this year to step it up to 20+ points and Sawada will be the third. Anything that happens this year is gravy, although it would be great with Vesce still around.

[Q]RichS wrote:

I agree with a lot of what's been said in this thread but am not quite sure what the "IVY approach" is...and why it precludes nabbing a more skilled scorer, or sniper? Is it the "IVY approach" or the coach's style that dictates the kind of player brought in...I think it's the latter.[/Q]
[Q]I had written:

If we had the ability to bring in players like the other 3 main leagues can, then we should go for it. However, since we want to maintain an IVY approach we are never going to get the breadth of talent that they have.

Coach Schafer will try and get those players, like Higgins, but there aren't that many around.[/Q]My point was that we can get a player or two who might be a sniper, but we can't get a teamfull like BC or Mich., since there arn't that many with the grades to get into an IVY school. Hence the "approach" referred to admissions, and not approach to playing hockey. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And I agree, Higgins would have been a star on our team, and likely gotten us to the finals.

You also need more than just one player who can play that style. Most of the successful snipers in the ECAC have had linemates able to play that game. One example for Cornell was when McCutcheon moved Ryan Hughes to center the first line with Doug Derraugh and Trent Andison in '90-'91 -- despite the overall defensive style of the team, Derraugh had a 30-36-66 year.

[Q]Hence the "approach" referred to admissions, and not approach to playing hockey.[/Q]Blue chip snipers also get a free ride at BC or Mich, while they may have to pay quite a bit at an Ivy if their parents are well off. (No, I'm not trying to start another discussion of financial need vs. scholarships, just adding to the point about getting kids into an Ivy school vs. the hockey approach.)