Interesting thoughts from Adam Wodon (USCHO Chat)

[www.cstv.com]

Vinod (New York): As a person that is very familiar with the Big Red, what do you feel their prospects are for capturing a national championship within the next few years? Have they attained all that they can with the 2003 / 2005 runs as long as they play within the current system? As a Big Red fan, I am searching for the light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks for your thoughts.

Adam Wodon: I'd hate to say it's impossible for them to do it, but the 2003 team was a very special team, and getting back to that level is very, very difficult for Cornell to accomplish. They had a great balance of skill, toughness, smarts, leadership and goaltending that they are going to need to achieve it. Players like Doug Murray, Stephen Bâby and Mark McRae don't come around all that often. I think Cornell is recruiting a lot more skill than ever before, but Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc. are always going to recruit more of it -- so it would take something extra ... and that's what this group -- as good as it is -- doesn't have that the 2003 group did. Whether the new recruits turn into that, we'll see. But the crop over the next two years has as much talent as Cornell has ever brought in. Can they get a Hobey-caliber goalie again? That remains to be seen, too.

Well, I for one would welcome the fire power that I was accustomed to as a student 75-79. Quite common to score 6 or more goals in a game. Shooters by the names of Vaughn, Nethery, Kerling, and Shier. The goalies were darn good back then too.

Skilled goal scoring forwards with hard hitting blue liners and we would be a force to be reckoned with.

Chris

cmoberg
Well, I for one would welcome the fire power that I was accustomed to as a student 75-79. Quite common to score 6 or more goals in a game. Shooters by the names of Vaughn, Nethery, Kerling, and Shier. The goalies were darn good back then too.

Skilled goal scoring forwards with hard hitting blue liners and we would be a force to be reckoned with.

Chris

Ahh the good old days. One of my favorite memories was beating Sucks 11-4, with a hat trick by some guy named Tredway.

Jeff Hopkins '82

cmoberg
Well, I for one would welcome the fire power that I was accustomed to as a student 75-79. Quite common to score 6 or more goals in a game. Shooters by the names of Vaughn, Nethery, Kerling, and Shier. The goalies were darn good back then too.

Skilled goal scoring forwards with hard hitting blue liners and we would be a force to be reckoned with.

Chris

Ahh the good old days. One of my favorite memories was beating Sucks 11-4, with a hat trick by some guy named Tredway.

What's this thing called "Cornell hat trick"? I see it mentioned in archives.

cmoberg
The goalies were darn good back then too.


Chris

You must not have been watching the same goalies I was during the mid-to-late '70s! I remember goalies like Vandermark and Napier, for whom no lead was safe. The games were much more entertaining since they were higher scoring, but the shaky defense and goaltending always caught up with us in the ECAC playoffs (i.e. the memorable 10-9 double overtime loss to UNH in the ECAC semifinals).

Ah yes, and I have a puck from an 8-4 victory over Sucks, I believe in '77 (have to find it and read the faded writing on the tape). It was nice to see those goals pile up.

cmoberg
Well, I for one would welcome the fire power that I was accustomed to as a student 75-79. Quite common to score 6 or more goals in a game. Shooters by the names of Vaughn, Nethery, Kerling, and Shier. The goalies were darn good back then too.

Skilled goal scoring forwards with hard hitting blue liners and we would be a force to be reckoned with.

Chris

Yeah the good old years. In 75-79 we finished 5,3,2,3 in the regular season and 3,3,-,3 in the tourney. That is we never made it to the championship game. I'll take today anytime.

As I worked for Cornell into the mid 80s, I may be confusing my goalie memories. Seems Hayward and Elliot were pretty good.

Chris

The mid to late 70s was a cool down period in Cornell Hockey history. Dick Bertrand was not able to sustain the prowess of the teams of the late 60 and early 70s. However, it was exciting hockey to watch but frustrating come playoff time.

What "wins" in hockey seems to be cyclic. Strong Offense, Strong Defense, Good Offense/Good Defense, etc. From the makeup of our recruits we are transforming from a Defense centric team with better balance between offense and defense. This will better position us to take on the Western powers. In some way I think Harvard is ahead of us in this transformation.

Chris '79

cmoberg
The mid to late 70s was a cool down period in Cornell Hockey history. Dick Bertrand was not able to sustain the prowess of the teams of the late 60 and early 70s. However, it was exciting hockey to watch but frustrating come playoff time.

What "wins" in hockey seems to be cyclic. Strong Offense, Strong Defense, Good Offense/Good Defense, etc. From the makeup of our recruits we are transforming from a Defense centric team with better balance between offense and defense. This will better position us to take on the Western powers. In some way I think Harvard is ahead of us in this transformation.

Chris '79

Teams also have to adapt themselves to changes in the games and the rules. If we saw more 200x85 surfaces for championships or if (more likely) we saw stricter penalty enforcement, we'd want to change to a faster team, whether we were a rugged, hard-hitting team (our perspective) or a clutch-and-grab, borderline-rules team (some outside observers' perspectives).

Schafer is still right that if a key metric is shots-per-sixty (allowed to reach the goalie), you're going to do well. But if that's your No. 1 focus and if you don't have the defensive skills to play that way, you're in trouble. Also, when you play for 2-1 victories, the bounce of the puck means you're going to play the same twice in a row and win 2-1 then lose 3-2. And when you find yourself down by a goal with 10 or 5 minutes to play in a key game, you have that sinking you're not going to get the tying goal.

One wonders if the solid style of play discourages star-caliber forwards from considering Cornell. You hear that said in college basketball about teams that play the deliberate Princeton style, such as Bill Carmody's Northwestern Team. Players want to win 92-85, not 51-46.

The other Cornell advantage, at least versus other ECACHL teams, is that we have so many good players that we can skate four lines and if the game is close going into the final period, we're fresh and they're tired. Didn't you notice how the Harvard players had trouble skating back to the bench after their fourth, fifth, and sixth goals? If the game had gone five periods, we probably would have caught up.

[Q]

billhoward

cmoberg
One wonders if the solid style of play discourages star-caliber forwards from considering Cornell. You hear that said in college basketball about teams that play the deliberate Princeton style, such as Bill Carmody's Northwestern Team. Players want to win 92-85, not 51-46.

[/Q]


I wonder sometimes why with, say, seven minutes left Schafer does not 'unleash the dogs of war' and let hes shooters score. for example, Iggy last season came out of nowhere to score left and right, and then as an undrafted player makes the sharks (well, Cleveland) and in interview alludes to wishing he could open up the scoring more when at Cornell. i'm not saying to throw the playbook in Cascadilla Gorge, but let 'em score mike!

The Rancor
I wonder sometimes why with, say, seven minutes left Schafer does not 'unleash the dogs of war' and let hes shooters score. for example, Iggy last season came out of nowhere to score left and right, and then as an undrafted player makes the sharks (well, Cleveland) and in interview alludes to wishing he could open up the scoring more when at Cornell. i'm not saying to throw the playbook in Cascadilla Gorge, but let 'em score mike!

You say that as if scoring involves nothing more than a conscious decision to go ahead and score. Did you think the team takes shots on net without actually intending to score? There is (usually) another team on the ice, you know.

Beeeej

i think the team takes too few shots (of quality and in general), holds the puck too long and does not create enough odd man rushes- because they are a defensive minded team, not and offensive minded one. I think the Schafer game plan is score 2 or 3 and shut em down, not lets get up 5-3 and keep hammering the net. how many times have i been pulling my hair out yelling "shoot! shoot! just shoot the frigging puck! ahhh!" ?

I think that Bitz needs to stand in front of the net a la Bertuzzi circa 2002. Dude, you're huge!!! Screen the goalie and fight for some rebounds.

The Rancor
i think the team takes too few shots (of quality and in general), holds the puck too long and does not create enough odd man rushes- because they are a defensive minded team, not and offensive minded one.

Then you hopefully recognize that every step Schafer takes toward an offensive-minded team takes away from the power of our defense. Like I said, it's not just a matter of turning on a faucet and "letting" them score.

And fans who scream "shoot" are, IMHO, among the most annoying people on earth. The guys wearing the skates generally have a better idea than you do of whether it's the right time to take a shot. Would I like them to shoot more often and score more often? Absolutely. But in general, I trust them to know when a shot is worth taking. They have a better view.

This Cornell team has a far greater need to work on cycling the puck better in the PP to open up potentially good shot opportunities than they do simply to take more shots.

Beeeej

Agreed. I see fans screaming "SHOOT" when there is no shooting lane. A blocked shot from the point can easily turn into an odd man rush.

This weekend, we created ample great scoring opportunities against both Colgate and Harvard. It's just that we weren't able to capitalize (read finish) on the opportunities. Just my opinion, but I think the Harvard players had a bit more composure in such situations, taking that split second to settle down the puck and then shoot. Our guys, on the otherhand, seemed rushed shoot at the open net, and fanning on the shot or missing the net.

RedAR
Agreed. I see fans screaming "SHOOT" when there is no shooting lane. A blocked shot from the point can easily turn into an odd man rush.

This weekend, we created ample great scoring opportunities against both Colgate and Harvard. It's just that we weren't able to capitalize (read finish) on the opportunities. Just my opinion, but I think the Harvard players had a bit more composure in such situations, taking that split second to settle down the puck and then shoot. Our guys, on the otherhand, seemed rushed shoot at the open net, and fanning on the shot or missing the net.

I agree with you but often it seems that individual players hold the puck so long before either passing or shooting that they give the defense time to set up again. I think some fans are reacting to this more than the quality of the shooting lane.

Beeeej

The Rancor
I wonder sometimes why with, say, seven minutes left Schafer does not 'unleash the dogs of war' and let hes shooters score. for example, Iggy last season came out of nowhere to score left and right, and then as an undrafted player makes the sharks (well, Cleveland) and in interview alludes to wishing he could open up the scoring more when at Cornell. i'm not saying to throw the playbook in Cascadilla Gorge, but let 'em score mike!

You say that as if scoring involves nothing more than a conscious decision to go ahead and score. Did you think the team takes shots on net without actually intending to score? There is (usually) another team on the ice, you know.

Beeeej

It's hard to disagree: You can't just flip a Scoring Mode switch in the last couple minutes of a game ... without, at least, hindering your defense. You can hang a winger at the offensive blue line and hope for the home run pass that he may or may not get his stick and that he may or may not then skate in with and beat the goalie.

OTOH, last spring, in the lax semifinal against Duke, soembody flipped the shooting switch on Joe Bouloukos in the fourth quarter and we almost made up that impossible deficit in the NCAA semifinals. Had he been unleashed in Q3 it might have been Cornell not Duke in last season's title game. True, easier said than done in lacrosse than hockey, and in basketball than in lacrosse.

I guess we need to ride out 2006 with the guns we brought and the style that got us into the field of 16.

We also should consider the possibility that all the rays of light shining on Ted Donato's head have made him something special in just his first [edit (oops): second] season as coach. It's possible in that one game at least, we weren't just outplayed but outcoached. Coaches can have off days, too.

[q]If the game had gone five periods, we probably would have caught up.[/q]Good point! I change my mind - two game total goal series for all championship games! But we play both games back to back.

billhoward
We also should consider the possibility that all the rays of light shining on Ted Donato's head have made him something special in just his first season as coach.

First season?
[www.uscho.com]

DeltaOne81

billhoward
We also should consider the possibility that all the rays of light shining on Ted Donato's head have made him something special in just his first season as coach.

First season?
[www.uscho.com]

Time flies. Make that his second season. Still pretty impressive. But he's got to get past the Harvard one-and-done history in the NCAAs.

[Q] I agree with you but often it seems that individual players hold the puck so long before either passing or shooting that they give the defense time to set up again. I think some fans are reacting to this more than the quality of the shooting lane.[/quote][/Q]


exactly what i meant

It seems that many of the problems stem from Topher's role on the PP. Whereas when Vesce was in that role, he would (and could) often take the puck to the net, or even let off the occassional one-timer from the left circle. It added a dimension that commanded respect from the defense.

This unit can be frustrating play because Topher rarely drives to the net, and doesn't snap off any wrister or one-timers. He is clearly there to get the puck to Mouslon or, less frequently, Bitz. Not that I place any blame on him for this; that's just his role. And in effect, it sets up a 4x4 situation, where the defense only has to protect against our shooters. (Or even worse, a 4x3 or 4x2 situation, if you consider how much the PP gets funneled through Moulson and O'Byrne).

Sidenote: On a more pleasant note regarding our power play, I'm sure I wasn't the only one, when we O'Byrne scored the 2nd goal Saturday night, who had an "instant flashback" to McRae's goal in the 2003 Championship. If it wasn't the same exact play on the drawing board, it sure was pretty damn close. Win the draw clean, tie/hold up all the bodies on the ice, shoot low and through the screens. Only differece was it was to Daigneau's right as opposed to Hyphen's left.

Jordan 04
Only differece was it was to Daigneau's right as opposed to Hyphen's left.

And it was on a completely different end of the Pepsi Arena

Jordan 04
If it wasn't the same exact play on the drawing board, it sure was pretty damn close. Win the draw clean, tie/hold up all the bodies on the ice, shoot low and through the screens.

Just so you know, I think every guy who has ever coached at any level, has exactly that play on his PP drawing board. Executing it just as you described will produce a lot of goals; if not on the original shot, then on rebounds on which you should outman the PK team down low.

RedAR
Agreed. I see fans screaming "SHOOT" when there is no shooting lane. A blocked shot from the point can easily turn into an odd man rush.

It would be much more productive if those fools that yelled "shoot" yelled "move!" instead. Often times it seemed like Topher and Moulson got stuck in a two on two mini-game on the PP while the other guys, three on two, were stuck standing around watching. Drive the net more...we seem more successful when we are aggressive down low. The shots from the point can be a crap shoot...unless there is a clear plan--the Harvard tactic to shoot low and to the weak side during the first period of the Championship was brilliant and caused a ton of predictable rebounds off of McKee's leg pads. The second PP unit: ugh. It's a win for them when they control the puck in the zone.

I'm really excited for the CC game! NCAA's four out of the last five years? Sweet. KRACH says it is 55-45 that we lose but I think it is another great opportunity to show off the consistency of our program with an upset.