He'll be playing with the London Knights of the Ontario Hockey League alongside the probable #1 overall pick at the draft Patrick Kane (from Buffalo) and another definite top 10 pick, Sam Gagner.
Maybe Milo will be back on the team now. Or they'll get someone else but it's pretty late. Regardless, 14 forwards isn't enough IMO.
Gosh darn it. This is why I hate reading this board in the off season.
I figured that we were safe from defections for another year.
Interesting. Not trying to flame, but two of the more highly recruited freshman, known for their ability to play on the offensive side of the puck, are going in other directions.
Is this just coincidence? Is this the result of stagnating in Schafer's defensively oriented system?
When's the last time Cornell lost two freshman like this? A down Cornell team is bad for the ECAC and I hope they can fill the void. Hopefully, the Devins can step it up - although they certainly did not put up awe-inspiring #'s in the BCHL....
Bothman,
While I agree that a down Cornell team, or for that matter any down ECAC team, is bad for the league, as long as other teams improve, it should not hurt the league. One thing good about the ECAC is that although there are several teams that usually can be counted on as being in the elite of the league, there is some turnover.
It surprises me that both Milo and Romano have left the Cornell hockey team. I had thought that Schafer was abandoning his defensively oriented system and going for a more offensively oriented one. I guess that is not necessarily the case. On the other hand, maybe Romano just didn't think that college was right for him.
[quote ursusminor]
It surprises me that both Milo and Romano have left the Cornell hockey team. I had thought that Schafer was abandoning his defensively oriented system and going for a more offensively oriented one. I guess that is not necessarily the case. On the other hand, maybe Romano just didn't think that college was right for him.[/quote]
Yeah - that's the problem. There are so few players and every situation is unique, so it's often dangerous to draw general conclusions. Hopefully there's nothing "beneath the surface" and Milo and Romano simply made individual choices about what was best for their futures.
I will certainly miss Romano - he was explosive with the puck and very exciting to watch. We haven't had a player like him in a very long time.
It was not Milo's choice to not be on the team anymore.
Losing Romano will hurt but I don't think it'll be the difference in Cornell being good or not next season. When he was on, he was a spectacular offensive player with significant issues on the other side of the ice. When he was off, he contributed nothing.
[quote calgARI '07]When he was on, he was a spectacular offensive player with significant issues on the other side of the ice. When he was off, he contributed nothing.[/quote]I mean, he was a freshman. A talented one, it sounds like, but you can't expect the frosh to come in and play both sides of the ice perfectly every night.
I'll be honest, I'm not as much concerned for the ECAC as I am for Cornell. I don't want the league to win the ECAC tourney next year, I want Cornell to. Without going back and compiling stats, it seems like there have been a lot of coincidences this year that we've tried to point out are single instances and not necessarily trends. I hope I'm just being paranoid about that...
Ceterum censeo, Harvardo Clarksonque delendae sunt.
[quote ftyuv]I mean, he was a freshman. A talented one, it sounds like, but you can't expect the frosh to come in and play both sides of the ice perfectly every night.
[/quote]
There's a difference between making freshman mistakes in the defensive zone and being completely inept in the defensive zone. The good news for Romano is that he won't need to commit to defensive zone hockey in London - they play a high octane, run-and-gun style that should suit Romano's current game well. Doesn't mean it'll prepare him better for the NHL though.
No doubt that e's a top notch talent, but his decision-making with the puck leaves a lot to be desired.
[quote calgARI '07][quote ftyuv]I mean, he was a freshman. A talented one, it sounds like, but you can't expect the frosh to come in and play both sides of the ice perfectly every night.
[/quote]
There's a difference between making freshman mistakes in the defensive zone and being completely inept in the defensive zone. The good news for Romano is that he won't need to commit to defensive zone hockey in London - they play a high octane, run-and-gun style that should suit Romano's current game well. Doesn't mean it'll prepare him better for the NHL though.
No doubt that e's a top notch talent, but his decision-making with the puck leaves a lot to be desired.[/quote]
I totally agree with Ari. He'll put up big numbers playing along side Kane and Gagner. But, he won't compete against older/stronger players or learn to play defense--two things he'll need to do to prepare him for the next level. His linemates (especially Kane) won't put in any effort in the defensive zone, but they have elite offensive talent and can afford (to some extent) to be lazy defensively whereas Romano can't.
This move makes no sense to me. Why come to a school that doesn't award scholarships and play for a coach that puts such a premium on playing defensive style only to jump to a team and a league that is all about offense when you need to improve defensively?
[quote redhair34]This move makes no sense to me. Why come to a school that doesn't award scholarships and play for a coach that puts such a premium on playing defensive style only to jump to a team and a league that is all about offense when you need to improve defensively?[/quote]
This is exactly why the "players stagnate in Schafer's defensive system" line seems too simplistic. When he agreed to come to Cornell Romano had to know that Cornell has played a defense first style for years and would still emphasize defense even while trying to improve the offensive talent. (I suppose Schafer could have lied during recruiting and claimed that they were changing the system completely but I really doubt it.)
The idea behind him coming to Cornell was to round out his game and 'get him ready for the NHL.' Whether he has NHL talent is debatable IMO. There are a ton of smallish players with big time ability in Europe who play very similar hockey to Romano and never come close to the NHL. Some do make it obviously so I'm not saying Romano won't but going to London is not necessarily going to separate him from them.
This is a good move but also a bit of a gamble for Tony. He will get the opportunity to play two times the games but his production expectations will be very high. I would think that anything less than scoring 75+ points will be considered a bust.
For a player who wants to play in the NHL, there is no better place to develop than the CHL.
Good luck in London and with the US Junior National team.
http://www.londonknights.com/default.asp
I noticed on the Cornell hockey site that Romano is already gone from the roster, as is the story about him having been invited to the US Junior camp.
There's also a little note on Romano on http://www.ushr.com. Not surprisingly, coach isn't happy.
"We were the last to know," Schafer said.
Its sad we lost such a talented player. We all wish him well and we are sure we will see big things from Tony in his hockey career. The CHL is the best place to develop talent and thats why over 75% of the NHL is from these three leagues(Q,W,O).
Hope they bring Milo back, I agree with Ari, IMO 14 forwards are not enough and if Milo can score goals he will add to our offensive threat!
Good Luck Tony in London, where better then to play for the Hunters, and maybe the Best team in all the CHL. They have placed more NHL talent then any other team the past 6 years...
You will be missed greatly!!!
Question:
Does the departure of Romano affect Riley Nash? If he is drafted as projected, is it possible that he sees the writing on the wall, so to speak, and bolts for major junior as well?
If it wasn't Milo's choice not to be on the team anymore, then he comes back only if he wants to and Schafer reverses course on a recent decision -- seems unlikely. Given Milo's success on the diamond, it's also unlikely he's going to decide now to give that up. The trend of players leaving early or not being asked back for whatever reason is a bit disturbing. I'd expect it if we were realistically anticipating Frozen Four appearances every year (see North Dakota and Minnesota) but our rate of departures seems high for the quality of play we put on the ice. I may be mistaken but I'd bet over the last few years we have one of the higher attrition rates.
[quote DILLIGAF]Does the departure of Romano affect Riley Nash? If he is drafted as projected, is it possible that he sees the writing on the wall, so to speak, and bolts for major junior as well?[/quote]
Riley Nash is coming to play with his brother. Presumably he knew all about how Schafer runs the show before committing to Cornell. So I wouldn't expect him to decide to leave because of Romano's departure.
[quote redredux]If it wasn't Milo's choice not to be on the team anymore, then he comes back only if he wants to and Schafer reverses course on a recent decision -- seems unlikely. Given Milo's success on the diamond, it's also unlikely he's going to decide now to give that up. The trend of players leaving early or not being asked back for whatever reason is a bit disturbing. I'd expect it if we were realistically anticipating Frozen Four appearances every year (see North Dakota and Minnesota) but our rate of departures seems high for the quality of play we put on the ice. I may be mistaken but I'd bet over the last few years we have one of the higher attrition rates.[/quote]
I think you raise some very good points. I don't know what the numbers say, but it seems like Cornell is losing the same amount of guys early as the top programs. The difference is that Cornell is not a top program. It isn't a bad program by any stretch of the imagination with four second round appearances in six years, but I still think it is in that second tier. Tough to argue otherwise. You would think with the Cornell education and all that, Cornell would lose fewer players early even if it were a top notch program. I guess part of it can be attributed to how college hockey is changing particularly since the lockout with NHL teams looking for younger, cheaper players. But the coaches need to receive some blame either because they aren't doing enough to keep the players here (which I think was the case with Romano) or they aren't bringing in the right players in the first place.
Does anyone know how well he did as a student? Maybe it's been mentioned on another thread, but if he was having problems maybe he felt this was the best move?
Milo, Nash, Romano, and Gallagher were all left behind on the north country trip for an undisclosed disciplinary measures. two are off the team, one got his bad ass little brother to blue chip at Cornell. hmmm. the other?
I think you are right about the brother being the biggest hook, but it is possible that the departure could be a factor.
Another even bigger factor is if the team that drafts him wants him to play somwhere else. If he is drafted high enough they could have a lot of say in where he plays next year.
there was an article in the IJ today with a little more info:
http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007706110330
Schafer leaves open the possibility of Milo coming back, as well as potentially bringing in a 2008 player (Locke Jillson is the only forward we know about).
[quote pfibiger]Schafer leaves open the possibility of Milo coming back, [/quote]
Also mentions that Milo was looking to transfer. I wonder if the coaches at the other schools he was looking into were no happier with Milo playing two sports than Schafer was.
Just taking the story presented in the IJ Romano comes off pretty badly. To tell your coach that you're not even considering leaving and then turning around and jumping ship in June doesn't speak that well of him. The business about the number of games per season is true, but it's not like Romano just discovered the difference when he came to Cornell (or in the last couple of months). This makes it sound like Romano was only using Cornell as a one year stepping stone to the OHL, which he may have felt he needed after playing in a lower junior league.
All that said, there may be (probably is?) more to the story that the general public isn't likely to find out. I haven't been in the locker room so it's hard to say whether Romano is a selfish opportunist who screwed over the Cornell program or if Schafer is a tinpot dictator who chased away a talented player.
Reading the IJ article on the Romanos reminded me of the storyline on Jerry Maguire.
[quote ugarte][quote pfibiger]Schafer leaves open the possibility of Milo coming back, [/quote]
Also mentions that Milo was looking to transfer. I wonder if the coaches at the other schools he was looking into were no happier with Milo playing two sports than Schafer was.[/quote]
Not that a reporter on deadline weighs the nuance of every word, but this, "One possibility is the return of Justin Milo, who cut ties with the team with the idea of seeking a transfer, Schafer said. But Milo, who played for the Big Red baseball team in the spring, has decided to return to Cornell for his sophomore year in the fall," sounds as if it could be a Cornell spin - Milo cut his ties, as opposed to Cornell cut him loose and that made Milo think "transfer," and now that Milo has decided to stay at Cornell after hitting like Lou Gehrig, maybe he'd give hockey a spin one more time.
This helps a little bit take the sting off the lax season. Can't wait for the countdown clock to the red-white scrimmage.
I'd rather have Romano than Milo. I'd rather have both, at that. Oddly, it appears not to be up to me. I hate that. :-(
[quote KeithK]Just taking the story presented in the IJ Romano comes off pretty badly. To tell your coach that you're not even considering leaving and then turning around and jumping ship in June doesn't speak that well of him.[/quote]
While there are a lot of circumstances where "just business" is used to cover some truly immoral behavior, I really wish people would stop judging interactions like this as if they were governed by junior high "pinky swears." Romano has every right to look after his own interest here. I'm not sure if he is even permitted to talk to OHL teams (with an agent? without one?) without jeopardizing his NCAA eligibility. I also don't know if it is in his long-term interest to let Schafer know that he is thinking about leaving if he ultimately decides to stay.
Do you think that Schafer told Milo during hockey season that he was considering forcing him to choose baseball or hockey?
Quote from: ugarteRomano has every right to look after his own interest here.
Yes, he has the right to do so. But just because he has the right to do it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.
Quote from: ugarteDo you think that Schafer told Milo during hockey season that he was considering forcing him to choose baseball or hockey?
No. But then I don't have any evidence to say that Schafer did this after the season either. As far as I know the idea that Milo was cut over playing baseball is speculation.
[quote ugarte]Romano has every right to look after his own interest here.[/quote]Who said he didn't?
While we're stacking speculations, for all we know, Romano warned Schafer that he was exploring juniors, and Mike said come on in, we'll deal with it as it comes up, but for now it's great to have you.
[quote KeithK]
Quote from: ugarteRomano has every right to look after his own interest here.
Yes, he has the right to do so. But just because he has the right to do it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.[/quote]
OK then, I'll be more clear: to decide his own path for developing his talents was the right thing to do. Lying about his intentions isn't pretty but he doesn't owe Schafer an honest answer to a nosy question, especially if he thinks it might impact his own search or future with the team as a fallback plan.
[quote ugarte][quote KeithK]
Quote from: ugarteRomano has every right to look after his own interest here.
Yes, he has the right to do so. But just because he has the right to do it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.[/quote]
OK then, I'll be more clear: to decide his own path for developing his talents was the right thing to do. Lying about his intentions isn't pretty but he doesn't owe Schafer an honest answer to a nosy question, especially if he thinks it might impact his own search or future with the team as a fallback plan.[/quote]
I disagree. Schafer has a team to run, and that means in part picking a freshman class based on the class he thinks he'll have staying. If he asks a player whether he can count on that player to return, I think it's fair to expect an honest answer. Cornell put an investment in Romano by taking him, and if he spit in the face of that, I'd say that's not cool.
Similarly, a player invests in a college when he goes there. If Milo asked Schafer if he's at any risk of not being invited back, or if he'd have to choose between sports, and if Schafer had said "point blank" that no, then turning around a few months later and kicking him off the team would also be dick.
Looking out for your best interests is well and good, but if you do it without any regard for the consequences it'll have on others -- especially those whose help you gladly take when you need it -- I think that's bad.
And as a disclaimer, I don't know the exact details of what happened, so I wouldn't condemn Romano's decision without more info. But if he bit the hand that fed him, we should call a spade a spade, and a jerk a jerk.
I think the program will be better off in the long run without Romano. Schafers' program prides itself on being a team made up of individual contributers rather than selfish players trying to be the team, and Romano was very much a selfish player. Good luck to Romano. Cornell hockey will be just fine.
[quote ftyuv]Schafer has a team to run,[/quote]
How is that Romano's problem? If Schafer got offered a job in the NHL, he'd take it. If Schafer wanted to cut Romano, he'd cut him. You can choose to frame that in moral terms. I think it is easier to root for the players on the ice and remain indifferent to how they live their lives.
As I recall, LeNeveu, McKee and others were equally cagey about their plans before signing and leaving. You want to condemn them also? Fine. But you are beating your heads against a wall. The only reason they have to lie is because nobody will let them make decisions about their lives in private, announcing the result when they are ready to do so. If saying "no" leads to fewer follow-up questions than "maybe," no is the right answer.
[quote Trotsky]I'd rather have Romano than Milo. [/quote]
I don't agree. Romano may be the flashier player but Milo contributes in all areas. Romano was a top notch offensive player at the college level but he didn't think the game well at all. Milo may not have put up the numbers this year, but his superior hockey sense was evident. Players like Milo win you championships. Players like Romano win scoring titles.
[quote ugarte]As I recall, LeNeveu, McKee and others were equally cagey about their plans before signing and leaving. You want to condemn them lso?[/quote]
I don't remember the details with LeNeveu. From what I recall I do believe that McKee gave the coaching staff plenty of notice that he was likely to leave after his junior season.
[quote KeithK][quote ugarte]As I recall, LeNeveu, McKee and others were equally cagey about their plans before signing and leaving. You want to condemn them lso?[/quote]
I don't remember the details with LeNeveu. From what I recall I do believe that McKee gave the coaching staff plenty of notice that he was likely to leave after his junior season.[/quote]
Or they certainly believed there was a good chance. We were actively recruiting goalies to replace him during that recruiting season.
[quote ugarte][quote ftyuv]Schafer has a team to run,[/quote]
How is that Romano's problem?[/quote]
It's Romano's problem because if everyone constantly did only what was best for them in that instant, regardless of how it would affect other people or (more importantly) what they told other people they'd do, then a lot of things would suck. And what goes around comes around, so in such a world, Romano might find himself on the short end of a renege that hurts him someday.
Or, to quote my favorite show:
George: [scoffing] Because of society, right?
Jerry: Yes, George, because of society.
[quote Jacob '06]
Or they certainly believed there was a good chance. We were actively recruiting goalies to replace him during that recruiting season.[/quote]
Isn't that pretty normal regardless of the odds of losing your junior goaltender to the pros? I think coaches generally like to bring in a freshman goaltender while the established starter is a senior, so the freshman gets a chance to adjust to the college game. It's less of a risk for the coach to put in a sophomore who's spent a season practicing with the team and backing up a senior than to play a freshman straight out of juniors.
Besides, that way if you don't get a legitimate starting goaltender you have another season to go find one.
A couple of threads on Hockey's Future about Romano
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=387462
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=378809
[quote Tom Lento][quote Jacob '06]
Or they certainly believed there was a good chance. We were actively recruiting goalies to replace him during that recruiting season.[/quote]
Isn't that pretty normal regardless of the odds of losing your junior goaltender to the pros?[/quote]
Not when you already had two other non-senior goaltenders (Chabot and DiLeo). Carrying 4 goalies on a team is highly unusual. It seems pretty leave that Dave told them it was a possibility, and I thought we learned after the fact that that was indeed the case.
[quote DeltaOne81][quote Tom Lento]
Isn't that pretty normal regardless of the odds of losing your junior goaltender to the pros?[/quote]
Not when you already had two other non-senior goaltenders (Chabot and DiLeo). Carrying 4 goalies on a team is highly unusual. It seems pretty leave that Dave told them it was a possibility, and I thought we learned after the fact that that was indeed the case.[/quote]
We learned it during the recruiting process. We were recruiting a kid, Brad Theissen, who ended up at Northeastern (we thought it was just between CU and North Dakota) and he said in an interview that the coaching staff had told him that McKee was leaving.
[quote calgARI '07][quote Trotsky]I'd rather have Romano than Milo. [/quote]
I don't agree. Romano may be the flashier player but Milo contributes in all areas. Romano was a top notch offensive player at the college level but he didn't think the game well at all. Milo may not have put up the numbers this year, but his superior hockey sense was evident. Players like Milo win you championships. Players like Romano win scoring titles.[/quote]
How could you make a statement like that. Milo is a good player but D-1 is the highest level he can play. Romano on the other hand has won at every level he has competed at. He is invited to the U20 USA team tryouts which he will probaby make, drafted by NJ played on 3 US National teams. What else does he have to prove,especailly to a fan who wishes he or she could do what he does. I know him and I have Coached against him since he was 10 years old. I also know his Coach Alexi Nikiforv very well. The kid always is knocked by people who do not know him or understand his game or are simply jealous for some stupid reason. I did not see him play this year at Lynah, but via our poor internet feed he shows his game. One thing that Romano needs is someone who can compliment his style. When you play that European offensive stlye you need players who thrive and understand that flow game. Cornell is not that type of team, I still can not figure out why he ended up there but...for him its more of give and take and hope that things work out on the ice. The other problem is, that too many players stand and watch, they all have to flow to the open lanes etc. Romano will make it if he gets stronger, that is his only issue, but it seems that he has from what I have heard. Plus, The Devils are very happy with his development at both ends of the ice. Lets be real, we lost a great Hockey player but we will move on and someone else will pickup the slack. At least Trotsky seems to have a better understanding of the game. Be Real, if Milo was so good or better then Romano why was he released from the team? Please Get Real...
I wasn't particularly impressed with Milo's offensive or defensive prowess this year. He did improve on defense, and started to get some significant time on the PK, if I remember correctly.
Romano has the offensive skill, but he tended to skate around 4 defenders in order to get the puck in the corner with no shot at the goal. Not sure who I think is better, but I was more upset by the loss of Romano, if only because I feel he has more potential with the team.
[quote cufan4ever][quote calgARI '07][quote Trotsky]I'd rather have Romano than Milo. [/quote]
I don't agree. Romano may be the flashier player but Milo contributes in all areas. Romano was a top notch offensive player at the college level but he didn't think the game well at all. Milo may not have put up the numbers this year, but his superior hockey sense was evident. Players like Milo win you championships. Players like Romano win scoring titles.[/quote]
How could you make a statement like that. Milo is a good player but D-1 is the highest level he can play. Romano on the other hand has won at every level he has competed at. He is invited to the U20 USA team tryouts which he will probaby make, drafted by NJ played on 3 US National teams. What else does he have to prove,especailly to a fan who wishes he or she could do what he does. I know him and I have Coached against him since he was 10 years old. I also know his Coach Alexi Nikiforv very well. The kid always is knocked by people who do not know him or understand his game or are simply jealous for some stupid reason. I did not see him play this year at Lynah, but via our poor internet feed he shows his game. One thing that Romano needs is someone who can compliment his style. When you play that European offensive stlye you need players who thrive and understand that flow game. Cornell is not that type of team, I still can not figure out why he ended up there but...for him its more of give and take and hope that things work out on the ice. The other problem is, that too many players stand and watch, they all have to flow to the open lanes etc. Romano will make it if he gets stronger, that is his only issue, but it seems that he has from what I have heard. Plus, The Devils are very happy with his development at both ends of the ice. Lets be real, we lost a great Hockey player but we will move on and someone else will pickup the slack. At least Trotsky seems to have a better understanding of the game.[/quote]
No one here is arguing that Romano doesn't have lots of talent or that Milo is more talented. That's not the point. The question is whether Milo or Romano would contribute more to a winning Cornell team. You argue that it would be Romano for various reasons but then you argue the other way in the next breath. If "Cornell is not [the] type of team" that Romano is suited for then maybe Milo would be a better fit for the program and contribute more.
From what I've seen on the ice (not much admittedly) and from all reports here and elsewhere. Romano is not a great college hockey player. He may have the talent to be one if he had stayed but he has deficiencies in his game that most acknowledge. (Not to say that Milo is either.) I'm not happy to see either player leave but life goes on.
[quote cufan4ever]Be Real, if Milo was so good or better then Romano why was he released from the team? Please Get Real...[/quote]
There is no reason to think that Milo being cut had anything to do with his playing ability. So this isn't a fair argument.
[quote cufan4ever]
How could you make a statement like that. Milo is a good player but D-1 is the highest level he can play. Romano on the other hand has won at every level he has competed at. He is invited to the U20 USA team tryouts which he will probaby make, drafted by NJ played on 3 US National teams. What else does he have to prove,especailly to a fan who wishes he or she could do what he does. I know him and I have Coached against him since he was 10 years old. I also know his Coach Alexi Nikiforv very well. The kid always is knocked by people who do not know him or understand his game or are simply jealous for some stupid reason. I did not see him play this year at Lynah, but via our poor internet feed he shows his game. One thing that Romano needs is someone who can compliment his style. When you play that European offensive stlye you need players who thrive and understand that flow game. Cornell is not that type of team, I still can not figure out why he ended up there but...for him its more of give and take and hope that things work out on the ice. The other problem is, that too many players stand and watch, they all have to flow to the open lanes etc. Romano will make it if he gets stronger, that is his only issue, but it seems that he has from what I have heard. Plus, The Devils are very happy with his development at both ends of the ice. Lets be real, we lost a great Hockey player but we will move on and someone else will pickup the slack. At least Trotsky seems to have a better understanding of the game. Be Real, if Milo was so good or better then Romano why was he released from the team? Please Get Real...[/quote]
Winning in the Atlantic Junior Hockey League is a big challenge. I don't wish I could be him and I am certainly not jealous of him. As much as I want to play for London, I'm happy with my degree.
You didn't watch him play this year and are an expert on Romano whereas I watched him play every single game this year and know nothing. You're also an expert on Milo saying that he will never play past college after not seeing him play at all this year.
I never said he was a bad player and in fact I acknowledged almost everything you claimed about Romano. That still doesn't really change the fact that he struggles in many areas of the game.
It has been interesting to follow the progression of this thread, figured I'd throw my two cents in. While Romano's flair and offensive potential are undeniable, I don't think that his departure will have a significant impact on the team. He will be missed the most on the PP.
Tony spent way too much time skating BACKWORDS, in large sweeping circle cutbacks often seen in Junior-level hockey. That just won't work at the next level, and shouldn't be used at this one... Not to mention on the defensive end he lacked the basic instincts to be serviceable.
He was certainly an exciting player to watch and don't get me wrong I'm not trying to knock the kid and would have loved to see him come back and finish top 3 in scoring, but we can, and definitely will be competitive without him.
What i find odd about people saying he is horrible defensively, and is a liability on the ice.
Well why did he have the second best +/- on the team with a +9 behind only Jared Seminoff?
Some parts of the Milo / Romano threads recast the parable of the fox and grapes.
How did Don Cherry get into this thread?
[quote dre1614]What i find odd about people saying he is horrible defensively, and is a liability on the ice.
Well why did he have the second best +/- on the team with a +9 behind only Jared Seminoff?[/quote]
Because +/- is the most misleading stat in all off sports. +/- is a unit stat, not an induvidual stat. Marek Malik has lead the Rangers (and at times the NHL) in +/-...has anyone here seen Marek Malik play defense?
Unless you're looking at a unit as a whole, +/- should be completely disregarded.
i think your missing the point.
Since he had the second highest plus/minus on the team he couldn't have been hurting his team that much with his "horrible" defensively play could he?
Not necessarily, how many times did Tony circle around with the puck for thirty seconds only to give it up at the redline? Even if your teammates cover up for you, it doesn't mean that you haven't hurt the team by wasting a possession.
I've been a Romano supporter all year, so I'm not about to bash him now that he's gone. But there is no denying his deficiencies: mainly that he hogged the puck and couldn't do much on the ice when it wasn't on his stick. And how many times did we see him pull dangerous stick moves at his own blue line?
He just wasn't a smart player on the ice.
Now, it was my hope that we would get to see Schafer coach these kinks out of Tony's game. For all his fault's, I loved watching Tony play and I was looking forward to watching him as a more complete upperclassman, unfortunately that won't happen now.
And while I understand that Tony wanted to play more games, I don't understand how going to the most run and gun team in all of junior hockey is going to help him with his obvious deficiencies. If he was interested in rounding out his game, Cornell was the place to do it. Frankly, I'm surprised that the Devils, and organization as concerned with defense as you'll ever find, didn't step in and make him stay here for that reason. If he was determined to go CHL I would think that the Debbies would have at least sent him out west to the WHL to work on the weaker points of his game.
He is not the greatest defensive forward on the team, but it's not like he is that defensively inept. His plus/minus was +9, he had 19 points. I'm going to guess he had around 5-7 points on the power play. thats 12-14 points even strength. subtract that and how many goals was he on the ice against all season? 3 to 5. A horrible defensive player does not let in that few goals against, while playing a LOT of ice time.
We all know how skilled he is, and thats why i think going to the OHL is good for him. Maybe not for Cornell but for him it's a good move. Playing with other kids just as, if not more skilled than him will help him out tremendously. His offensive skills are very raw. The OHL will smooth out his skills, then once those are good he can go to the AHL and work on his defense.
For my money, Romano was far and away the worst defensive foward on the team last year. Not only did he add nothing as a checker, but he probably gave up the puck in his own zone, and in the neutral zone, more than any other foward. Again, ditch the +/-, it's a useless stat! It tells you nothing about the induvidual.
[quote evilnaturedrobot]For my money, Romano was far and away the worst defensive foward on the team last year. Not only did he add nothing as a checker, but he probably gave up the puck in his own zone, and in the neutral zone, more than any other foward. Again, ditch the +/-, it's a useless stat! It tells you nothing about the induvidual.[/quote]
Couldn't have said it better, agree 100%
[quote evilnaturedrobot]For my money, Romano was far and away the worst defensive foward on the team last year. Not only did he add nothing as a checker, but he probably gave up the puck in his own zone, and in the neutral zone, more than any other foward. Again, ditch the +/-, it's a useless stat! It tells you nothing about the induvidual.[/quote]
Fine, but what about his +/-???
Still avoiding...
If he was such a bad checker, and defender, how in the hell did he have such a good plus/minus?
You know he switched lines a few times too.
Oh but you would rather have a player that scores less, and gives up more goals on the ice.
Quote from: BeeeejFine, but what about his +/-???
I think part of it was that he played lots of PP minutes and few if any PK minutes (which was by far our shortcoming last year), part of it was that he was rarely put on in defensive situations (ie faceoffs in our zone) and the other part of it was that he just wasn't that bad and his speed made up for some of his mistakes.
[quote grizzdan24]
Quote from: BeeeejFine, but what about his +/-???
I think part of it was that he played lots of PP minutes and few if any PK minutes (which was by far our shortcoming last year), part of it was that he was rarely put on in defensive situations (ie faceoffs in our zone) and the other part of it was that he just wasn't that bad and his speed made up for some of his mistakes.[/quote]
First of all, I was kidding (though sadly, dre1614 was not). Second, I'm reasonably certain (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that PP goals don't count toward the +/- of either team's players.
[quote evilnaturedrobot]For my money, Romano was far and away the worst defensive foward on the team last year. Not only did he add nothing as a checker, but he probably gave up the puck in his own zone, and in the neutral zone, more than any other foward. Again, ditch the +/-, it's a useless stat! It tells you nothing about the induvidual.[/quote]
The bashing of Romano's defense should stop. Point and Fact I am friends with one of Fathers whose son is a player on the squad. In fact my son will be attending a HEA school that the Cu Players Dad played for...
So here is the scoop from the Team Stats. The Players Dad and I are laughing at the poor sports that continue to ride something that just is not true.
1. Romano had one of the lowest number turnover rates and # of turnovers on the team, per the CU Coaching Staff stats. His turnovers were more in the 'O' zone and were more visible because he carried the puck so much. In fact he was in the lower half of puck turnovers based on all players who played regular shift.
2. He was only on for 5 goals against all season, because when he was on the ice the team was usually in the 'O' zone.
3. Romano could not check because he was playing with one shoulder and had surgery one week after the season ended.
4. The Coaching staff was not worried about his D game in fact they praised him for his small area battles and how well he moved the puck out of the 'D'
5. He led the team in most offensive catergories except for points/ game
Believe this or not, this is the complete truth. An Honest Inside scoop..
[quote Beeeej] Second, I'm reasonably certain (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that PP goals don't count toward the +/- of either team's players.[/quote]
Correct.
sadly i was not?
What the hell?
Nice little cheap shot there Beeeej. Anyways keep thinking Romano was a horrible defensive player, when in reality he was about average with the rest of the Cornell team.
Oh yeah, well, I'm the love child of Ken Dryden and Ned Harkness, and I say he sucks.
[quote dre1614]
Anyways keep thinking Romano was a horrible defensive player, when in reality he was about average with the rest of the Cornell team.[/quote]
Right. But don't you have check at least a little bit to play defense? Yeah, I can't remember Romano ever attempting even one check...he seemed mostly afraid to get physical. But yeah, even beyond that...horrible defensive player indeed...fantastic kid though and an offensive beast; someone I would have loved to see develop through a couple seasons.
Romano only contributed to the team on the offensive side of the puck, but this was still enough to make him a player we will miss next year. Despite his small frame, painful shoulder injury, and relative inexperience, he was a talented offensive player who seemed better able to generate quality scoring chances and exciting offensive rushes than anyone else on the team. With another year of experience and a healthy shoulder, I think Romano would have put up impressive numbers this year. Like others, I question why he would leave Cornell, but he is the natural goal-scorer that this team desperately needed the past couple years (and, no, I'm not forgetting Moulson). He is not the typical defensive-minded "Schafer system" forward, but the fact that he was the exception to the rule is what made him valuable. I hope we can follow Tony's success in the alumni threads for the next few years.
Perhaps Riley will be that breakthrough scorer. In addition to his skills, he is also reputedly a strong, tough physical player with a nasty edge -- an ideal Schafer player.
Anyway, there will be that much more ice time for other players willing to step up. We'll survive.
[quote dre1614]Still avoiding...
If he was such a bad checker, and defender, how in the hell did he have such a good plus/minus?
You know he switched lines a few times too.[/quote]
Once again, I think that +/- is a useless stat. It judges the unit, not the individual, and is highly dependant on match ups. How many times was Tony matched up against an opponent's top O-line? There are countless examples of poor defensive players with great +/- (Marek Malik being my favorite.) I continue to attempt to explain this too you and you keep coming back with: "but his +/- is so good." And I'm the one that's avoiding? You might as well tell me what his SV% was; I would consider it just as relevant.
[quote dre1614]
Oh but you would rather have a player that scores less, and gives up more goals on the ice.[/quote]
I have never said this. Given the choice of Romano or Milo I would take Romano, you're putting words in my mouth here.
[quote dre1614]
Anyways keep thinking Romano was a horrible defensive player [/quote]
I will, because I base my opinions on my own observations, rather than irrelevant stats.
[quote cufan4ever]
The bashing of Romano's defense should stop. Point and Fact I am friends with one of Fathers whose son is a player on the squad. In fact my son will be attending a HEA school that the Cu Players Dad played for...
So here is the scoop from the Team Stats. The Players Dad and I are laughing at the poor sports that continue to ride something that just is not true.[/quote]
What needs to stop is the assumption that because I have criticisms about Tony's game that I have some sort of agenda against him. For crying out loud, I defended him all year! He was probably the player that I most enjoyed watching last year. I'm sorry to see him go, but I'd also love to see him tear it up in the OHL, as that would reflect better on this program than if he fell flat on his face (how embarrassing would it be if one of the most talented players on last year's team couldn't cut it against 19 year old junior players?) I have nothing against Tony; in fact, I'd consider myself a fan. That does not mean that I will blindly ignore his deficiencies.
[quote cufan4ever]
1. Romano had one of the lowest number turnover rates and # of turnovers on the team, per the CU Coaching Staff stats. His turnovers were more in the 'O' zone and were more visible because he carried the puck so much. In fact he was in the lower half of puck turnovers based on all players who played regular shift. [/quote]
I haven't seen these stats, but I'll take your word for it. I will say that this is hard to believe based on watching him play. Without seeing these stats, or having any of my own, I am unable to argue this point. What I will say is that, regardless of what the final numbers ended up with, that Tony was a dangerous player defensively. How many times did we see him pull dekes at his own blue line? This is the kind of thing that a good defensive player does not do...ever. What's worse is that he wasn't just doing this as the start of the season, I saw him do it in the playoffs against Q. He was fun to watch, but man did he make me hold my breath on a frequent basis.
[quote cufan4ever]
2. He was only on for 5 goals against all season, because when he was on the ice the team was usually in the 'O' zone. [/quote]
How many times was Tony out there against the top offensive unit? Again, goals against are completely relative to whom you are playing against.
[quote cufan4ever]
3. Romano could not check because he was playing with one shoulder and had surgery one week after the season ended. [/quote]
I'm well aware of the shoulder injury and I agree that you could see a marked difference in his play towards the end of the season. I don't know when exactly it happened, but I noticed a drop off in his play after the Colgate weekend. Even so, the man had two fully functional shoulders during the first half of the season, but he didn't do anymore checking then than he did at the end.
[quote cufan4ever]
4. The Coaching staff was not worried about his D game in fact they praised him for his small area battles and how well he moved the puck out of the 'D' [/quote]
I'm completely shocked by this. I've already outlined how dangerous I found Tony to be at his own blue line, and I can't believe that Schafer would be happy with his habits there either. I will agree that Tony's physicality did improve over the course of the season, which I found encouraging.
[quote cufan4ever]
5. He led the team in most offensive categories except for points/ game [/quote]
No one has questioned Tony's offensive abilities. Though I do think he squandered a lot of possessions by over stick handling, but that's not surprising considering the lower level junior league that he jumped up from.
Again, I'm a Romano fan. I'm not looking to bash him here; I'm merely giving my opinions. For all the negative things I've said about his defense, I also think that Tony had the best puck skills of anyone that I saw play in the ECAC last year, and he was probably one of the fastest too. I've never wanted him off the team, I'm actually really sorry to see him go. With time and work he could have shored up his defensive issues to the point where he wasn't a liability (and I don't care what the numbers say, my eyes tell me that he was dangerous out there), and he could have been one of the most dangerous offensive players to come through Lynah in some time. Alas, now it will for sure not happen, I think it's a shame.
well that was exhausting, I'm going to bed now.
My take on the most pointless fan-fight since "Scrivens or Davenport":
I'm a fan of Romano. Not only for the offensive potential, but because of having the most fun name to shout in scoring announcement echoes since Sancimino himself. I can't comment on his defensive play, because frankly, I can't remember it. I guess his D play never made an impression on me one way or another if it was poor or solid.
Offensively, he was our Kobe Bryant. Immense talent and speed, but I can't count how many times I shouted in my head "PASS THE F*&*ING PUCK!!!" The coast-to-coast deke-fest that he kept trying over and over may have worked splendidly in juniors or at the pick-up rec sessions vs. guys like me during holiday breaks, but at this level, it doesn't fly. Only once-in-a-generation talents can be trusted to do that multiple times. At this level, opponents will let you take it to the blue-line, then drop the hammer. Tony would try to make the cut to the crease and often get ridden to the corner by 3-4 defenders. Pass the puck, and it's not a broken rush. Even work on a simple give-and-go and you've got more success.
That type of play had been tried before at Cornell (Jason Dailey, One-man Team!) and never really succeeded. Didn't Pegoraro go in the doghouse because of being selfish with the puck? I regret that we don't get to watch Tony's development firsthand.
St. Louis/Perrin worked because defenders had to cover them both. Maybe it was a limitation of the CU team/system that Romano never found that linemate that really could've made him an ECAC superstar. I hope he finds that in the future.
Most of us wish him all the best. CU hockey will survive, but I think we're a worse team without that weapon.
[quote RichH]we're a worse team without that weapon.[/quote]
We're a worse team without that weapon, if successfully deployed. Whether the obstacle was attitude or lack of communication, Romano was not making strides towards becoming a complete player while here. He counts as a Cornell hockey alumnus, therefore, I wish him well, and perhaps a different enivornment will speed his development.
[quote RichH]Offensively, he was our Kobe Bryant. Immense talent and speed, but I can't count how many times I shouted in my head "PASS THE F*&*ING PUCK!!!" The coast-to-coast deke-fest that he kept trying over and over may have worked splendidly in juniors or at the pick-up rec sessions vs. guys like me during holiday breaks, but at this level, it doesn't fly.[/quote]
Sometimes it takes awhile to learn that lesson.
Another Cornell forward whose name ended in a vowel, Carlo Ugolini, had the same problem as a sophomore. By senior year, he had long given that crap up while becoming an outstanding feeder as well as scorer (25 goals, 44 assists in 29 games). Should have been the east All-American center in 1973.
[quote evilnaturedrobot][quote dre1614]What i find odd about people saying he is horrible defensively, and is a liability on the ice.
Well why did he have the second best +/- on the team with a +9 behind only Jared Seminoff?[/quote]
Because +/- is the most misleading stat in all off sports. +/- is a unit stat, not an induvidual stat. Marek Malik has lead the Rangers (and at times the NHL) in +/-...has anyone here seen Marek Malik play defense?[/quote]I've seen Marek Malik play enough defense to know that he's not NEARLY as bad as he gets scapegoated for.
[quote sah67][quote dre1614]
Anyways keep thinking Romano was a horrible defensive player, when in reality he was about average with the rest of the Cornell team.[/quote]
Right. But don't you have check at least a little bit to play defense? Yeah, I can't remember Romano ever attempting even one check...he seemed mostly afraid to get physical. [/quote]Which was the case, as has been pointed out, because his shoulder was injured.
[quote Josh '99][quote evilnaturedrobot][quote dre1614]What i find odd about people saying he is horrible defensively, and is a liability on the ice.
Well why did he have the second best +/- on the team with a +9 behind only Jared Seminoff?[/quote]
Because +/- is the most misleading stat in all off sports. +/- is a unit stat, not an induvidual stat. Marek Malik has lead the Rangers (and at times the NHL) in +/-...has anyone here seen Marek Malik play defense?[/quote]I've seen Marek Malik play enough defense to know that he's not NEARLY as bad as he gets scapegoated for.[/quote]
Malik's not Sandis Ozolinsh clueless in his own end, it's rather that he's good for atleast 3-4 bonehead moves a game. So while he's not an awful defender all the time, he is personally responcible for more goals allowed as any defensemen I've ever seen at the NHL level.
[quote evilnaturedrobot][quote Josh '99][quote evilnaturedrobot][quote dre1614]What i find odd about people saying he is horrible defensively, and is a liability on the ice.
Well why did he have the second best +/- on the team with a +9 behind only Jared Seminoff?[/quote]
Because +/- is the most misleading stat in all off sports. +/- is a unit stat, not an induvidual stat. Marek Malik has lead the Rangers (and at times the NHL) in +/-...has anyone here seen Marek Malik play defense?[/quote]I've seen Marek Malik play enough defense to know that he's not NEARLY as bad as he gets scapegoated for.[/quote]
Malik's not Sandis Ozolinsh clueless in his own end, it's rather that he's good for atleast 3-4 bonehead moves a game. So while he's not an awful defender all the time, he is personally responcible for more goals allowed as any defensemen I've ever seen at the NHL level.[/quote]The number of gaffes committed by Malik is greatly exaggerated by how glaring a small number of them are. I think he's a lot steadier than people give him credit for.
I watched atleast 65 Ranger games last year and probably 120 over the last two years. I'm not telling you what I've heard, I'm tell you what I've seen. You're welcome to your own opinion on Malik (would you happen to be an NHL GM looking to take him off the Ranger's hands?), but I've had enough of him.
[quote evilnaturedrobot]I watched atleast 65 Ranger games last year and probably 120 over the last two years. I'm not telling you what I've heard, I'm tell you what I've seen. You're welcome to your own opinion on Malik (would you happen to be an NHL GM looking to take him off the Ranger's hands?), but I've had enough of him.[/quote]Fair enough. I don't want to get into a pissing contest about who's seen the most Rangers hockey, but I've watched a pretty fair amount as well. Believe me, I've seen some boneheaded gaffes, but I've also seen a lot of good defensive positioning that we'd be happy to see in a Cornell defenseman.
I'd love to see another GM take him off the Rangers' hands, still, but that's because I think he's overpaid ($2.5M/year is a lot for a stay-at-home defenseman, though no worse than Mara or Kasparaitis are overpaid), not because I think we have anybody in the system who'd do any better of a job.
[quote Josh '99][quote evilnaturedrobot]I watched atleast 65 Ranger games last year and probably 120 over the last two years. I'm not telling you what I've heard, I'm tell you what I've seen. You're welcome to your own opinion on Malik (would you happen to be an NHL GM looking to take him off the Ranger's hands?), but I've had enough of him.[/quote]Fair enough. I don't want to get into a pissing contest about who's seen the most Rangers hockey, but I've watched a pretty fair amount as well. Believe me, I've seen some boneheaded gaffes, but I've also seen a lot of good defensive positioning that we'd be happy to see in a Cornell defenseman.
I'd love to see another GM take him off the Rangers' hands, still, but that's because I think he's overpaid ($2.5M/year is a lot for a stay-at-home defenseman, though no worse than Mara or Kasparaitis are overpaid), not because I think we have anybody in the system who'd do any better of a job.[/quote]
Well that depends on just how ready Staal is when camp starts up. If Marc's ready to step in when the season starts then I'd much rather live with his growing pains then Malik's gaffes. Staal's OHL playoff run was just dominating, and he's probably been the best defensive defensemen in Junior hockey over the last 2 years. But, considering the the jump between Junior and the NHL, he probably needs half a season in Hartford.
...and I think we're officially off topic (and this is mostly my fault.)
[quote evilnaturedrobot]I watched atleast 65 Ranger games last year and probably 120 over the last two years. I'm not telling you what I've heard, I'm tell you what I've seen. You're welcome to your own opinion on Malik (would you happen to be an NHL GM looking to take him off the Ranger's hands?), but I've had enough of him.[/quote]
Well, then I'm really glad that this Malik guy isn't taking the time to play 4 years at Cornell. ::crazy::
[quote dre1614]sadly i was not?
What the hell?
Nice little cheap shot there Beeeej. Anyways keep thinking Romano was a horrible defensive player, when in reality he was about average with the rest of the Cornell team.[/quote]
Thanks! Funny, though, I didn't say a thing about Romano's defensive play. In fact I didn't say anything about Romano at all.
But now that I'm on the subject, he's the only Cornell player in my twenty years of watching Cornell hockey who has ever made me shout, "There are four other skaters on the ice with you!!" And I did it several times during the season.
Still haven't said anything about his defensive play.
Agreed. Malik's pretty solid on the kill too. Now Aaron Ward was a different story- I think he actually scored (deflections) 5 or 6 times on Lundqvist before being dealt to Boston.
You can throw as many stats as you want but it doesn't change what I and most others SAW when they watched him play. He sucked defensively and made terrible decisions with the puck. For some reason, Schafer and the other coaches let him get away with his stickhandling around his own net for the entire season and did not hold him responsible for not buying into team defense. He was still a top notch offensive player at the college level and not one person in this thread has argued that. I still question how badly his absence will hurt the team. He recorded points in one of the final nine games.
[quote calgARI '07]You can throw as many stats as you want but it doesn't change what I and most others SAW when they watched him play. He sucked defensively and made terrible decisions with the puck. For some reason, Schafer and the other coaches let him get away with his stickhandling around his own net for the entire season and did not hold him responsible for not buying into team defense. He was still a top notch offensive player at the college level and not one person in this thread has argued that. I still question how badly his absence will hurt the team. He recorded points in one of the final nine games.[/quote]
To be fair, this was clearly after the shoulder injury. He was really picking it up in the middle of the season and then dropped of markedly after the Colgate weekend, I wouldn't be suprised if it happened then.
[quote evilnaturedrobot][quote Josh '99][quote evilnaturedrobot][quote dre1614]What i find odd about people saying he is horrible defensively, and is a liability on the ice.
Well why did he have the second best +/- on the team with a +9 behind only Jared Seminoff?[/quote]
Because +/- is the most misleading stat in all off sports. +/- is a unit stat, not an induvidual stat. Marek Malik has lead the Rangers (and at times the NHL) in +/-...has anyone here seen Marek Malik play defense?[/quote]I've seen Marek Malik play enough defense to know that he's not NEARLY as bad as he gets scapegoated for.[/quote]
Malik's not Sandis Ozolinsh clueless in his own end, it's rather that he's good for atleast 3-4 bonehead moves a game. So while he's not an awful defender all the time, he is personally responcible for more goals allowed as any defensemen I've ever seen at the NHL level.[/quote]
You lost all credibility when you claimed +/- was a useless statistic. Look at the top 3 in the NHL last year - Vanek, Alfredsson, Lidstrom ... pretty good two way players.
[quote wewantmore]
You lost all credibility when you claimed +/- was a useless statistic. Look at the top 3 in the NHL last year - Vanek, Alfredsson, Lidstrom ... pretty good two way players.[/quote]
And you just lost all credibility when you called Vanek a pretty good two-way player. That is the same Vanek who was scratched in the 2006 playoffs because of his horrible defensive play. Are we to believe that he magically improved to be the best two-way player in the league in just one year? Vanek finishing with the top +/- shows exactly what the problems are with the stat. It is definitely not entirely useless as both Alfredsson and Lidstrom are very good defensive players but look at a guy like Saku Koivu who finished a -25. There isn't one person on earth who will argue that Vanek is anywhere close to Koivu defensively yet he finished 72 ahead of him.
[quote calgARI '07][quote wewantmore]
You lost all credibility when you claimed +/- was a useless statistic. Look at the top 3 in the NHL last year - Vanek, Alfredsson, Lidstrom ... pretty good two way players.[/quote]
And you just lost all credibility when you called Vanek a pretty good two-way player. That is the same Vanek who was scratched in the 2006 playoffs because of his horrible defensive play. Are we to believe that he magically improved to be the best two-way player in the league in just one year? Vanek finishing with the top +/- shows exactly what the problems are with the stat. It is definitely not entirely useless as both Alfredsson and Lidstrom are very good defensive players but look at a guy like Saku Koivu who finished a -25. There isn't one person on earth who will argue that Vanek is anywhere close to Koivu defensively yet he finished 72 ahead of him.[/quote]Pretty much everyone acknowledges that Vanek's defensive play improved by leaps and bounds from 2005-06 to 2006-07.
[quote Josh '99]Pretty much everyone acknowledges that Vanek's defensive play improved by leaps and bounds from 2005-06 to 2006-07.[/quote]
Well, he tried harder in the defensive zone but in terms of his actual mental approach, it takes longer than just one season to make such a significant improvement. Any way you look at it, no matter how much he improved, he isn't the best defensive forward in the league despite what his +/- indicates and isn't even close for that matter. Saying he is in the top half of forwards in the NHL in his own end is still a stretch.
[quote calgARI '07][quote Josh '99]Pretty much everyone acknowledges that Vanek's defensive play improved by leaps and bounds from 2005-06 to 2006-07.[/quote]
Well, he tried harder in the defensive zone but in terms of his actual mental approach, it takes longer than just one season to make such a significant improvement. Any way you look at it, no matter how much he improved, he isn't the best defensive forward in the league despite what his +/- indicates and isn't even close for that matter. Saying he is in the top half of forwards in the NHL in his own end is still a stretch.[/quote]Nobody is saying he's the best defensive forward in the league, or even one of the best defensive forwards in the league; I don't think he'll ever be confused for a Selke Trophy finalist. But +/- isn't JUST about defensive play - the plus is half of the equation, after all.
I'm not saying that +/- is a be-all and end-all stat, but I don't think it's mere coincidence that Vanek was a -11 in 05-06 and a +43 (if I recall correctly) in 06-07.
[quote Josh '99][quote evilnaturedrobot]I watched atleast 65 Ranger games last year and probably 120 over the last two years. I'm not telling you what I've heard, I'm tell you what I've seen. You're welcome to your own opinion on Malik (would you happen to be an NHL GM looking to take him off the Ranger's hands?), but I've had enough of him.[/quote]Fair enough. I don't want to get into a pissing contest about who's seen the most Rangers hockey, but I've watched a pretty fair amount as well. Believe me, I've seen some boneheaded gaffes, but I've also seen a lot of good defensive positioning that we'd be happy to see in a Cornell defenseman.
I'd love to see another GM take him off the Rangers' hands, still, but that's because I think he's overpaid ($2.5M/year is a lot for a stay-at-home defenseman, though no worse than Mara or Kasparaitis are overpaid), not because I think we have anybody in the system who'd do any better of a job.[/quote]
This sounds a lot like the O'Byrne discussions back in the day. And since I always thought O'Byrne got a bad rap, I'm going to side with Josh.
As if you care.
Is it October yet...
Vanek was much better defensively this year and anyone who watches the Sabres regularly knows this.
Yes it was clear. Ruff pointed that out a few times during post game interviews.
[quote wewantmore]Vanek was much better defensively this year and anyone who watches the Sabres regularly knows this.[/quote]To be fair to Ari, though, he wasn't saying Vanek hadn't improved defensively, just that he still isn't a GREAT defensive player.
sad man you are, admitting to taking a cheap shot at posters. It doesn't matter tho, when he gets to the NHL and plays for a NHL team he will get the last laugh.
[quote dre1614]sad man you are, admitting to taking a cheap shot at posters. It doesn't matter tho, when he gets to the NHL and plays for a NHL team he will get the last laugh.[/quote]
I think it'd be much sadder if I couldn't admit it. I also think it'd be much sadder if I were incapable of seeing other points of view or understanding simple English.
If you want to argue that someone's +/- stats make him a great defensive player, and someone else counters by explaining why +/- isn't a good indicator of that, your next job is to explain why it is a good indicator, not just repeat that his +/- makes him a great defensive player. That is, if you actually want to have a conversation rather than just shout the hockey board equivalent of "I'm right, I'm right, na-na poopy!"
As for the "last laugh," once again: If you think I don't wish Romano great success in all his endeavours, then you're reading something that I'm not writing.
I didn't notice this recent article by Elliot Olshansky linked here yet: http://slog.cstv.com/rinkrat/2007/08/goodknight_mr_romano.html.
Very interesting, ursusminor. Thanks!
[quote ursusminor]I didn't notice this recent article by Elliot Olshansky linked here yet: http://slog.cstv.com/rinkrat/2007/08/goodknight_mr_romano.html.[/quote]
This could have its own thread. "Romaaaaaano.... Sucks!"
[quote ursusminor]I didn't notice this recent article by Elliot Olshansky linked here yet: http://slog.cstv.com/rinkrat/2007/08/goodknight_mr_romano.html.[/quote]
Thanks for posting here.
[quote some cheesy guy who doesn't seem to want to go to school for four more years]At Cornell, the style of play is very different, a lot of dump and chase, a lot of defence, a lot of systems, maybe too many systems. [/quote]
QuoteAt school there's a lot more distractions.
Yes, distractions such as studying, prelims, finals, etc.
I think he made the right decision. Too many systems to memorize in hockey? How the hell would he be able to regurgitate his xxx101 course material?
[actually, nevermind]
His mother's a teacher, his father owns a telecoms company, and he's "not too into school"? Something is wrong there, but he certainly didn't belong in college. Maybe "me and my dad" spent too much time away from mom?::crazy::
[quote The Rancor][quote ursusminor]I didn't notice this recent article by Elliot Olshansky linked here yet: http://slog.cstv.com/rinkrat/2007/08/goodknight_mr_romano.html.[/quote]
This could have its own thread. "Romaaaaaano.... Sucks!"[/quote]
Eh, more like: "Romano is deeply confused"
He doesn't like defense or class, so he comes to cornell?
He wants nothing more than to make it in the NHL, with the devils no less, and he goes to London so that he won't have to work on his obvious weeknesses?
I just feel bad for the kid, because I really don't think he's going about this the right way. It's fine to ditch school in favor of full time hockey if going to class wasn't his thing, but go to the WHL and learn to play both sides of the ice. I just don't see how running to the most offensive oriented team in all of junior hockey is going to help him.
I'm sure he's heard all that before. I'm sure Schafer told it to him, probably in the same talks that Tony told him he's going to stay at Cornell. He's 19 years old -- that's old enough in my book where he has responsibility for his own decisions. If he wants to throw out good advice and take the path of least resistance, I don't feel sorry for him.
It's easy, once you've been out of school for a couple years, to suspect that not every undergraduate makes decisions that prove to be the right ones years later. (Not that older adults make smart ones, too.) But was Romano's bad decision, if it was, to come to Cornell in the first place, or to leave after a year?
Maybe when Mike Schafer talked about opening up the offense, Romano missed the qualifier phrase "opening up the offense somewhat."
Maybe as Schafer attracts more, more highly talented players, there'll be more early flameouts. So we enjoy their prowess for a year, maybe two, and then start another Alumni in the Pros thread.
I'd be very surprised if Romano went to London without anybody in his family talking - at least informally - to anybody in New Jersey. The best thing about Romano right now is his offensive ability. I can see NJ being a bit worried about his skills calcifying in Ithaca. I don't think Romano fit on the team any better than the team fit Romano's improvement. He will have to learn defense, but he'll be better off in a system where he can learn to play defense AND be allowed to hold the puck.
And if he can't hack school, he can't hack school. I'm not going to follow his trip up to the NHL but if he gets there I'm not going to root against him either.
[quote ugarte]And if he can't hack school, he can't hack school. I'm not going to follow his trip up to the NHL but if he gets there I'm not going to root against him either.[/quote]
If Cornell was too challenging, he should have chosen a school that he can "hack". He's unlikely to have an NHL career. And, won't make much money in the minor leagues of hockey. So someday, he's going to wish he had a college education.
[quote redice]If Cornell was too challenging, he should have chosen a school that he can "hack".[/quote]
[insert hotelie joke here]
[quote ursusminor]I didn't notice this recent article by Elliot Olshansky linked here yet: http://slog.cstv.com/rinkrat/2007/08/goodknight_mr_romano.html.[/quote]Yikes. It really does make one wonder: why, of all places, Cornell, then? "I don't care about school, I want to be in a total immersion hockey environment, and I don't like playing a defensive system."
There must be a thousand kids playing juniors who would say the same thing, and god bless em. But why come play in exactly the opposite enivronment? And why did Schafer bring him in? You gotta figure one of the first things we say to prospects is, you can't play if you don't forecheck, and you can't score if you don't play.
[quote Trotsky][quote ursusminor]I didn't notice this recent article by Elliot Olshansky linked here yet: http://slog.cstv.com/rinkrat/2007/08/goodknight_mr_romano.html.[/quote]Yikes. It really does make one wonder: why, of all places, Cornell, then? "I don't care about school, I want to be in a total immersion hockey environment, and I don't like playing a defensive system."
There must be a thousand kids playing juniors who would say the same thing, and god bless em. But why come play in exactly the opposite enivronment? And why did Schafer bring him in? You gotta figure one of the first things we say to prospects is, you can't play if you don't forecheck, and you can't score if you don't play.[/quote]
While he was at it, he should have added "I don't like snow, or hills...".
[quote ftyuv]If he wants to throw out good advice and take the path of least resistance, I don't feel sorry for him.[/quote]Kent Manderville. He scoffed at Brian McCutcheon's advice to learn to play two-way, had to learn the same lessons over and over and over again at Olympic camp, then one day the lights came on and he wound up with a solid NHL career.
It's never too late to learn.
[quote Jim Hyla]His mother's a teacher, his father owns a telecoms company, and he's "not too into school"?[/quote]Given that background, I could imagine it having been the case that his parents pressured him into taking the college route rather than going to major junior, when he knew all along that he didn't have any interest in more schooling.
[quote ftyuv][quote redice]If Cornell was too challenging, he should have chosen a school that he can "hack".[/quote]
[insert hotelie joke here][/quote]
Actually, I was thinking of a different joke:
(http://www.bu.edu/athletics/icehockey/men/bios/photos/meyer-freddy.jpg)
[quote jtwcornell91][quote ftyuv][quote redice]If Cornell was too challenging, he should have chosen a school that he can "hack".[/quote]
[insert hotelie joke here][/quote]
Actually, I was thinking of a different joke:
(http://www.bu.edu/athletics/icehockey/men/bios/photos/meyer-freddy.jpg)[/quote]
He's an Islander now, so that's not funny. ::innocent::
[quote Trotsky][quote jtwcornell91][quote ftyuv][quote redice]If Cornell was too challenging, he should have chosen a school that he can "hack".[/quote]
[insert hotelie joke here][/quote]
Actually, I was thinking of a different joke:
(http://www.bu.edu/athletics/icehockey/men/bios/photos/meyer-freddy.jpg)[/quote]
He's an Islander now, so that's not funny. ::innocent::[/quote]
As a Flyer fan, yes it is ::moon::