Given how reduced the expectations were at the outset of the season, it's hard to be disappointed when the team gets one game from the Final Four before exiting. But still, once we got this far, we should have gone further. Once the one-seeds went down except BU in the opposite bracket, it's hard to imagine a theoretically smoother path to the title game than Cornell had this year.
Same old story as in other games where we can't catch up: We seem to have the style of play for protecting a two-goal lead except we're two goals down. Control the puck, buzz around the attacking zone, take some nice shots, have some close calls, just can't buy a goal. And no two-minute-drill miracles tonight.
Greening's bad luck shooting wide at an open net in the first may have been the difference in the game. We could have had a 2-0 lead (but didn't). Scrivens misjudged that long shot from the point and then we had the misfortune for Davenport to be a step too quick and the puck got behind him, giving Bemidji another goal.
Frustrating that we lost a game we could have won. Probably the health of key players was a factor.
Tonight, I'm having trouble forming the words "went further than anybody expected" and no trouble forming "We coulda been in the freakin' title game!"
This was as frustrating and disappointing loss as we've had in many years. It looked like the stage was set for us to get to the title game by defeating two No. 4 seeds. If we had gone into the third period with the lead, I felt we would have won. But Bemidji simply outplayed us in the third period.
Even so, it was better to lose this way than to lose the way UNH did, where their own player knocked the puck into his own net in the final seconds. That won't be any consolation for us, of course.
It was a still a good, but not great season. Overall, we can't complain.
[quote dbilmes]It was a still a good, but not great season. Overall, we can't complain.[/quote]
Sure we can ;-). Now, time to focus on Lax ... where somehow we'll probably have our hearts broken again.
[quote dbilmes]
Even so, it was better to lose this way than to lose the way UNH did, where their own player knocked the puck into his own net in the final seconds. That won't be any consolation for us, of course.
[/quote]
Oh, it'll be a little bit of consolation for me. Really.
[quote scoop85]
Now, time to focus on Lax ... where somehow we'll probably have our hearts broken again.[/quote]
That team's having similar injury/health problems to those that plagued hockey and wrestling all season. Very frustrating.
I have my doubts that we could beat Miami if we had gotten that far. I agree pretty much with whoever said we're just not that good. We have half a team - defense - and the nature of hockey is that that will get you a decent number of wins, may be even banners in a league that perrenially doesn't have a lot of scorers, and an occasional magic season, but you really can't live like that and expect to make National Championship noise.
This one just one of those games where you could feel it slipping away and knew Cornell wasn't going to claw it back. It's funny, I couldn't tell you where things really went wrong. After that first Cornell goal the whole room had a feeling we were going to put our foot on their throat and take it to DC. They're fast for sure, but more fast and out of control/wild. We got suckered into playing an end to end game.
I disagree with all the Schafer-defensive style haters out there who say we need to play more skilled offense. WE just need to execute better on the Schafer system. The better teams from prior years (thinking 03 and 05) forced the other teams to play our game. We were bigger, stronger and just beat the everloving crap out of our opponents. The last few years we haven't played nearly as physical and haven't been nearly as big. Let's get a few more Bâby's and O'Byrnes. If we're going to play Cornell Red Army hockey, let's get the biggest tree trunk defensemen we can and actually beat the crap out of our opponents. That's how we dictated our game and why we were such a dominant third period team. I know a lot of people will say "the game has changed - it's a speed/skill game now" but I think if we're committed to this system that's taken us pretty darn far, let's just do our best to execute it right/the way we used to.
I have high hopes for next year if Riley Nash returns. We don't lose that much talent and I think a Greening/Nash duo could be dynamite. It was a great year and hey, any season that ends with us having a shot to go to a Final/Frozen Four in ANY sport has to be put in the books as a success. It just seems that Cornell has been jinxed in the last 6 years in NCAA quarterfinals. We've lost 3x in hockey (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and tonight) an 2x in lax (navy and Duke). Two of those games were ot (one 3OT), one was by 1 goal (navy), one by 2 or 3 (duke lax). Oh well...kills you to be a CU sports fan on days like today. It's a shame that the last few years have had to end with the same thing - "Well, it's a lacrosse season."
This one hurt though...maybe more so than Wisconsin or Minnesota b/c the door was so open...a CHA opponent between us and a 4 seed in the frozen Four...argh...
Go Red
[quote CUontheslopes]I disagree with all the Schafer-defensive style haters out there who say we need to play more skilled offense. WE just need to execute better on the Schafer system. The better teams from prior years (thinking 03 and 05) forced the other teams to play our game. We were bigger, stronger and just beat the everloving crap out of our opponents. The last few years we haven't played nearly as physical and haven't been nearly as big. Let's get a few more Bâby's and O'Byrnes. If we're going to play Cornell Red Army hockey, let's get the biggest tree trunk defensemen we can and actually beat the crap out of our opponents. That's how we dictated our game and why we were such a dominant third period team. I know a lot of people will say "the game has changed - it's a speed/skill game now" but I think if we're committed to this system that's taken us pretty darn far, let's just do our best to execute it right/the way we used to.
[/quote]
Amen.
[quote Beeeej][quote CUontheslopes]I disagree with all the Schafer-defensive style haters out there who say we need to play more skilled offense. WE just need to execute better on the Schafer system. The better teams from prior years (thinking 03 and 05) forced the other teams to play our game. We were bigger, stronger and just beat the everloving crap out of our opponents. The last few years we haven't played nearly as physical and haven't been nearly as big. Let's get a few more Bâby's and O'Byrnes. If we're going to play Cornell Red Army hockey, let's get the biggest tree trunk defensemen we can and actually beat the crap out of our opponents. That's how we dictated our game and why we were such a dominant third period team. I know a lot of people will say "the game has changed - it's a speed/skill game now" but I think if we're committed to this system that's taken us pretty darn far, let's just do our best to execute it right/the way we used to.
[/quote]
Amen.[/quote]
Agreed. The 2003 team led the country in scoring margin per game and was top ten in goals per game, which doesn't happen if you're purely a defensive team.
[quote CUontheslopes]
This one hurt though...maybe more so than Wisconsin or Minnesota b/c the door was so open...a CHA opponent between us and a 4 seed in the frozen Four...argh...
[/quote]
I suppose his logic is "flawed," too, eh, abmarks? Perhaps it isn't all of us (Trotsky, ebilmes, scoop85, CUontheslopes, even li'l old me) who don't get it, but you know who.;-)
Yeah...I really just think anyone's who's been to Lynah in the last few years and could compare to 03-05/06 would tell you we're not physical. We're big, but we're not imposing the way we used to be. I'll always miss the line of Sawada, Bitz, O'Byrne, Pokulok and I forget the third forward, but everyone 6-2/3" plus and over 215 lbs. That's Cornell hockey. They hit people. Take that back...they didn't hit people - they lit people up. Teams were afraid to play us...that mystique is gone. I thought the reason we played so well for 40 minutes tonight was we were playing old school CU hockey - we really WERE lighting people up. There were some great hits early on. Bring back Hornby, Murray, Baby, O'Byrne, etc. and I'll be a happy camper.
[quote CUontheslopes]
I disagree with all the Schafer-defensive style haters out there who say we need to play more skilled offense. WE just need to execute better on the Schafer system. The better teams from prior years (thinking 03 and 05) forced the other teams to play our game. We were bigger, stronger and just beat the everloving crap out of our opponents. The last few years we haven't played nearly as physical and haven't been nearly as big. Let's get a few more Bâby's and O'Byrnes. If we're going to play Cornell Red Army hockey, let's get the biggest tree trunk defensemen we can and actually beat the crap out of our opponents. That's how we dictated our game and why we were such a dominant third period team. I know a lot of people will say "the game has changed - it's a speed/skill game now" but I think if we're committed to this system that's taken us pretty darn far, let's just do our best to execute it right/the way we used to.
[/quote]
1) You do realize they adjusted the officiating to call more obstruction and all that good stuff right? I'm not sure what would happen if you planted the 03 team into this year's season. THey'd be better than this year's team, true, but I wonder how much better.
2) Many have commented in many places that the rest of the ECAC at the least has adjusted over the years to our style of play. It's not just us... the other teams evolve too. Yale went from a bunch of hacks to a high-skill team.
3) It is a speed-skill game now. look at your final 4: 3 are speed skill teams (maybe 4 depending on what bucket Miami falls into)
[quote Lowell '99][quote Beeeej][quote CUontheslopes]I disagree with all the Schafer-defensive style haters out there who say we need to play more skilled offense. WE just need to execute better on the Schafer system. The better teams from prior years (thinking 03 and 05) forced the other teams to play our game. We were bigger, stronger and just beat the everloving crap out of our opponents. The last few years we haven't played nearly as physical and haven't been nearly as big. Let's get a few more Bâby's and O'Byrnes. If we're going to play Cornell Red Army hockey, let's get the biggest tree trunk defensemen we can and actually beat the crap out of our opponents. That's how we dictated our game and why we were such a dominant third period team. I know a lot of people will say "the game has changed - it's a speed/skill game now" but I think if we're committed to this system that's taken us pretty darn far, let's just do our best to execute it right/the way we used to.
[/quote]
Amen.[/quote]
Agreed. The 2003 team led the country in scoring margin per game and was top ten in goals per game, which doesn't happen if you're purely a defensive team.[/quote]
Huh??? What did you agree with? Can we live with zero offense or not?
Let's not forget how good our special teams were. It seems to me the biggest problem is our PP. We were something like 39th in the country. You can get away with being a great defensive team if you score 2-3 pp goals a game. When you don't...you struggle. I'm sorry, but the 03 team would be a beast no matter who they played. Of course, had a puck bounced our way in 05 or 06 we'd probably think Schafer was a genius and the system was great...
[quote Al DeFlorio][quote CUontheslopes]
This one hurt though...maybe more so than Wisconsin or Minnesota b/c the door was so open...a CHA opponent between us and a 4 seed in the frozen Four...argh...
[/quote]
I suppose his logic is "flawed," too, eh, abmarks? Perhaps it isn't all of us (Trotsky, ebilmes, scoop85, CUontheslopes, even li'l old me) who don't get it, but you know who.;-)[/quote]
Gee Al, ignoring all of the people who happen to concur with me that we're playing the wrong style?
I never said it didn't hurt. It does (mostly because I have FF tickets this one rare year ;) )
But the other ones hurt more, because I thought we had a shot at a TITLE those years. We all know were huge underdogs to win - er I mean get lucky for two more games. I'll take the pain of losing to a team that beat us soundly despite there less than top-shelf record in a quarter over gettinga bounce or two to make a final and getting smoked by UVM or BU. Tell me that loss wouldn't hurt so much worse?
[quote CUontheslopes]Let's not forget how good our special teams were. It seems to me the biggest problem is our PP. We were something like 39th in the country. You can get away with being a great defensive team if you score 2-3 pp goals a game. When you don't...you struggle. I'm sorry, but the 03 team would be a beast no matter who they played. Of course, had a puck bounced our way in 05 or 06 we'd probably think Schafer was a genius and the system was great...[/quote]
Yeah, 39 out of how many D-1 programs?
50something now I think? 39th won't get it done. In previous successful seasons we were much better (at least it seemed)
[quote Germ][quote CUontheslopes]Let's not forget how good our special teams were. It seems to me the biggest problem is our PP. We were something like 39th in the country. You can get away with being a great defensive team if you score 2-3 pp goals a game. When you don't...you struggle. I'm sorry, but the 03 team would be a beast no matter who they played. Of course, had a puck bounced our way in 05 or 06 we'd probably think Schafer was a genius and the system was great...[/quote]
Yeah, 39 out of how many D-1 programs?[/quote]
I think Germ meant 39th This year. In 03 we were top 10 for sure.
Good point Germ- OUr powerplay was sorely lacking all year. Anemic. Not enough skill. THe 03 Powerplay was able to put the puck in the net.
QuoteHuh??? What did you agree with? Can we live with zero offense or not?
I agree with not hating on Schafer's system when we've had lots of success, and also with the idea that a
purely defensive game is a part of that system. The offense is more control-oriented than breakout-oriented (or "skilled"), but it is not always absent.
Furthermore, you can't ignore the role of scholarships in the classification of Cornell's program as a notch below Michigan/BU/whomever (which I'd agree with), nor can you say it plays no role in shaping the system. You coach the players you have, and perhaps a high scoring player is going to attract more recruiter attention than some of the grinders we get. But that's just speculation on my part.
I'm convinced that's the difference maker...the PP was just so much better in 03...seems like it's been getting progressively weaker.
Another heartbreaking end to a season.
Ugh...
Not much more to say than that. :-(
[quote abmarks][quote Germ][quote CUontheslopes]Let's not forget how good our special teams were. It seems to me the biggest problem is our PP. We were something like 39th in the country. You can get away with being a great defensive team if you score 2-3 pp goals a game. When you don't...you struggle. I'm sorry, but the 03 team would be a beast no matter who they played. Of course, had a puck bounced our way in 05 or 06 we'd probably think Schafer was a genius and the system was great...[/quote]
Yeah, 39 out of how many D-1 programs?[/quote]
I think Germ meant 39th This year. In 03 we were top 10 for sure.
Good point Germ- OUr powerplay was sorely lacking all year. Anemic. Not enough skill. THe 03 Powerplay was able to put the puck in the net.[/quote]
Yeah, what I should have said was we were almost dead last in PP. That ain't gonna cut it. And..putting the '03 season aside, I'd be curiuos how our PP ranked in each of the last ten years. Just don't think we have the finishers to be a top 10-15 PP team year-in year-out.
[quote Lowell '99]
QuoteHuh??? What did you agree with? Can we live with zero offense or not?
I agree with not hating on Schafer's system when we've had lots of success, and also with the idea that a
purely defensive game is a part of that system. The offense is more control-oriented than breakout-oriented (or "skilled"), but it is not always absent.
Furthermore, you can't ignore the role of scholarships in the classification of Cornell's program as a notch below Michigan/BU/whomever (which I'd agree with), nor can you say it plays no role in shaping the system. You coach the players you have, and perhaps a high scoring player is going to attract more recruiter attention than some of the grinders we get. But that's just speculation on my part.[/quote]
Lowell, you missed the boat- that was Tims point.
he posted earlier in the thread that
"I have my doubts that we could beat Miami if we had gotten that far. I agree pretty much with whoever said we're just not that good. We have half a team - defense - and the nature of hockey is that that will get you a decent number of wins, may be even banners in a league that perrenially doesn't have a lot of scorers, and an occasional magic season, but you really can't live like that and expect to make National Championship noise."
He and I are both saying you can't live with no offense.
We'll actually never know about the impossibilities of recruiting other types of players until some time after there is a coaching staff that happens to bring with it a different recruiting base IMO. (I'm not saying kick em out here FYI) But if we keep doing the same thing we will have the same results. I have no idea what the experiment would yield were we to go otherwise.
Edit: It doesn't matter WHY we are below Michigan and Minnesota. We Are. No matter how you slice it they are great programs... and we are not. We can't go crying over lack of scholarships and massive arenas. It might noit be fair to expect consistently great teams without those things sure, but in the meantime we need to realize that we've been very good for a number of years, and excellent in 1 or 2 and otherwise.
Last I counted, there are 66 D1 teams. So 39th/66 is somewhere around 40%. I'm too lazy to do the math.
Normally, I think we get too lazy with the puck up top on the PP, and don't try to force it down low enough. Today, we did the opposite. I kept yelling at the TV "cycle it up top!" We kept forcing the puck down low and losing it on the PP.
Oh well.
[quote Kyle Rose]Another heartbreaking end to a season.
Ugh...
Not much more to say than that. :-([/quote]
True but let's not forget the two "magical" games against Princeton and NE which gave us a chance to have the heartbreaking ending.
QuoteLowell, you missed the boat- that was Tims point.
He and I are both saying you can't live with no offense.
I'm saying two things:
1) You win by outscoring your opponent. Of course you can't live with zero offense, but you can live without leading the country in scoring (or even being top 10). Like the adage that pitching and defense win in baseball, it's idiotic. Scoring more than your opponent wins, whether you shut them down completely, or bludgeon them with goals. There were many Brown teams in the late 90s and early 00s that were up there in the ECAC in goals scored (ahead of Cornell even) and finished exactly where we're used to seeing Brown.
2) I'm sure Schafer would love to have tons of talented scorers, and in fact, has brought in a few (Moulson, Knopp, Vesce, and Moynihan come to mind). What I'm not sure of is if your critique is of the type of players brought in or the style he prefers.
In fairness, I agree with your assessment of the level of our program relative to others in the country. I imagine most people on this board would as well, even if they do use the adjective "great" to describe it.
From collegehockeystats.com:
08-09: 38th, 15.3% 31/203 (3 SHGA)
07-08: 8th, 21.5% 39/181 (5)
06-07: 50th, 13.6% 21/154 (4)
05-06: 40th, 15.9% 36/227 (5)
04-05: 1st, 24.3% 43/177 (2)
03-04: 38th, 16.0% 28/175 (3)
02-03: 14th, 22.6% 38/168 (2)
01-02: 3rd, 28.0% 40/143 (0!)
Switching to ECAC stats:
00-01: 2nd, 21.1% 31/147 (2)
99-00: 10th, 15.3% 24/157 (3)
seems rather bimodal: either as close to the top as doesn't matter, or mediocre bordering on atrocious
Well after reading all the posts in different threads, here's my take on them.
First, I'm to blame because before the game I posted on how much better we were doing on the breakouts. Well tonight we fell back to our prior ways of standing behind the net wondering how to get out.
Second, I have to take Al's side, anyone doubt that two old farts might agree. This was the best opportunity for us to advance. No way would I have picked to play ND instead. All the ND fans wondered what happened to their team. There is no way ND is that bad considering their season this year and last. Because of the way we lost, when I think we had our best chance of being in DC, this game hurts much more than Minny or Wisc.
Third, this game was nothing like the Yale game. Yale had multiple pretty passing goal scoring opportunities. they connected on a few but had others as well. Tonight was not at all like that. Maybe we adjusted to that and didn't let it happen, but I still think Yale is a much better team than Bemidji. We should have beaten them, but like other games this year, for some reason we could not put together a consistent attack.
Fourth, I'd like to second whoever wrote about how difficult it is to compete with the scholarship schools. Yale and Princeton have turned around with good coaches, but I have to wonder how important the easy tuition issue is.
Fifth, as has previously stated, having a good defensive team first does not mean not scoring goals. As was pointed out we have had great PP teams and good scoring teams in the Schafer era, but not this year.
Finally, I'll again take responsibility for the loss. Before the game I'd posted that I thought this team did about as good as I could have expected when the season began. Strike me down if I ever again talk that way before a big game. Overall, I'm on the side of those who said we would have been happy if told in the beginning of the season we'd get a game from the Frozen Four. But given what we could have done tonight this still hurts the most of our regional losses. If as many have said, we keep our team together, we could have a great year next year. But playing in DC would have been a lot better than what I expect for Detroit next year. I don't want to have a championship series played in a gimmicky surrounding.
So, looking back, this is the first time Cornell has lost to a lower-seeded team in the NCAAs since the 2003 semifinal, and the only time we've ever been upset in the regionals. (Even before the neutral-site regionals, Cornell's quarterfinal and 1/8-final series in 1981, 1986, and 1991 were all on the road.)
[quote Lowell '99]
QuoteLowell, you missed the boat- that was Tims point.
He and I are both saying you can't live with no offense.
2) I'm sure Schafer would love to have tons of talented scorers, and in fact, has brought in a few (Moulson, Knopp, Vesce, and Moynihan come to mind). What I'm not sure of is if your critique is of the type of players brought in or the style he prefers.
[/quote]
Just did a quick look at the database. As an arbitrary number I counted all the players woth 10 or more points on the 2002-2003 team vs this year. 0203- had 15 players at 10 or more point. THis year it was an abysmal 8. So we obviously scored more and it was spread out much deeper that year, which I think was our best team of the Schafer years.
I don't know wheteher our system has evolved (devolved), the breadth of the recruiting classes is not as good as it could be, or if we're doing the same things we have been doing but the world has changed around us.
All I know is my eyeballs tell me that we don't look skilled out there and I see guys go flying by us.
Yes winning means outscoring the opponent. But you need a margin for error- so that when the defense isn't working, you can shift gears.
Without a potent powerplay we haven't had more than one gear. I can't say what the solution is like I said, I just know that with rare exceptions like 02-03, we haven't done things right in order to deserve to be at or near the top of the heap.
I just finished watching the game on TiVo, and it is painfully obvious that Cornell needs a better goalie if they are going to win ECACs or compete for a national title. The style they play does not allow for soft goals or mistakes, and having been in Albany and watched tonight's game I can say that in every game I've seen Scrivens play in he has let in at least one softie... and never makes the BIG save that past goalies like Elliot, Pelletier, and LeNeveau used to make for us.
Overall, a very disappointing loss... certainly the team had a good season, and perhaps a healthier team would have won the game, but the biggest factor holding this team back is inconsistent/shaky goaltending, and unless we switch styles and try to win 5-4 type games (very unlikely) we will need to address that.
Also, some ability to make pretty passing plays and score goals that aren't the result of scrums in front of the net would lead to more consistent scoring, which would also make the team a more consistent winner.
cnunlist
[quote cnunlist]that in every game I've seen Scrivens play in he has let in at least one softie..[/quote]
I don't know about every game, but certainly the second BSU goal was crap: Scrivens needs to stop those kinds of wrist shots from the top of the circle with no screen.
FWIW, that's where I started to lose hope.
[quote Kyle Rose][quote cnunlist]that in every game I've seen Scrivens play in he has let in at least one softie..[/quote]
I don't know about every game, but certainly the second BSU goal was crap: Scrivens needs to stop those kinds of wrist shots from the top of the circle with no screen.
FWIW, that's where I started to lose hope.[/quote]
I haven't seen him play that many games... so I'm sure it doesn't happen every game. But it sure seems like teams get 3-4 quality scoring chances on Cornell and score 2-3 goals, which is not good. And I HAVE seen a number of losing box scores where Cornell substantially outshot the other team and lost. Teams that play trapping, defensive styles need to have opportunistic scoring (think Kyle Knopp or the other really small guy we had on our Frozen Four team) and great goaltending. We had neither this season, which is why things ended up the way they did.
Also, one other thing that bothered me. As soon as we scored I was thinking "please don't give up a goal on the inevitable Cornell post-goal letdown". That is also not a good thing. It seems every time we score we relax a little bit while the other team turns up the intensity.
[quote Dafatone]Last I counted, there are 66 D1 teams. So 39th/66 is somewhere around 40%. I'm too lazy to do the math.
Normally, I think we get too lazy with the puck up top on the PP, and don't try to force it down low enough. Today, we did the opposite. I kept yelling at the TV "cycle it up top!" We kept forcing the puck down low and losing it on the PP.
Oh well.[/quote]
58 D1 teams. 1-39/58 = 33%
[quote Kyle Rose][quote cnunlist]that in every game I've seen Scrivens play in he has let in at least one softie..[/quote]
I don't know about every game, but certainly the second BSU goal was crap: Scrivens needs to stop those kinds of wrist shots from the top of the circle with no screen.
FWIW, that's where I started to lose hope.[/quote]It was a good shot to the long side, so credit the shooter for putting the puck where he wanted, but yes, Scrivens has to stop that. And the third one too. :`-(
We really are spoiled in terms of what we expect from Cornell goalies, aren't we?
[quote Josh '99][quote Kyle Rose][quote cnunlist]that in every game I've seen Scrivens play in he has let in at least one softie..[/quote]
I don't know about every game, but certainly the second BSU goal was crap: Scrivens needs to stop those kinds of wrist shots from the top of the circle with no screen.
FWIW, that's where I started to lose hope.[/quote]It was a good shot to the long side, so credit the shooter for putting the puck where he wanted, but yes, Scrivens has to stop that. And the third one too. :`-(
We really are spoiled in terms of what we expect from Cornell goalies, aren't we?[/quote]
And the defender missed blocking that shot by like a half second...
[quote Jim Hyla]
Fourth, I'd like to second whoever wrote about how difficult it is to compete with the scholarship schools. Yale and Princeton have turned around with good coaches, but I have to wonder how important the easy tuition issue is.[/quote]
Hopefully, the university itself is part of the appeal when a hockey player picks a school. In that regard, I think everyone would agree that Cornell has a lot to offer. I personally would not want to attend many of the schools with big hockey programs, even if they promised a lot of money. Sorry if that sounds snobby. Don't most (possibly all) Cornell players receive a fair amount of financial aid?
[quote French Rage][quote Josh '99][quote Kyle Rose][quote cnunlist]that in every game I've seen Scrivens play in he has let in at least one softie..[/quote]
I don't know about every game, but certainly the second BSU goal was crap: Scrivens needs to stop those kinds of wrist shots from the top of the circle with no screen.
FWIW, that's where I started to lose hope.[/quote]It was a good shot to the long side, so credit the shooter for putting the puck where he wanted, but yes, Scrivens has to stop that. And the third one too. :`-(
We really are spoiled in terms of what we expect from Cornell goalies, aren't we?[/quote]
And the defender missed blocking that shot by like a half second...[/quote]
And the whole rush up ice started when Barlow lost an edge in front of the Bemidji goal and ended up on the ice behind the net...
[quote cnunlist][quote Kyle Rose][quote cnunlist]that in every game I've seen Scrivens play in he has let in at least one softie..[/quote]
I don't know about every game, but certainly the second BSU goal was crap: Scrivens needs to stop those kinds of wrist shots from the top of the circle with no screen.
FWIW, that's where I started to lose hope.[/quote]
I haven't seen him play that many games... so I'm sure it doesn't happen every game. But it sure seems like teams get 3-4 quality scoring chances on Cornell and score 2-3 goals, which is not good. And I HAVE seen a number of losing box scores where Cornell substantially outshot the other team and lost. Teams that play trapping, defensive styles need to have opportunistic scoring (think Kyle Knopp or the other really small guy we had on our Frozen Four team) and great goaltending. We had neither this season, which is why things ended up the way they did.
Also, one other thing that bothered me. As soon as we scored I was thinking "please don't give up a goal on the inevitable Cornell post-goal letdown". That is also not a good thing. It seems every time we score we relax a little bit while the other team turns up the intensity.[/quote]
This definitely seems true to me. I don't think the major problem with Cornell's team is related to physical strength or hockey skills such as passing and shooting. There has to be some psychological component involved ... I am recalling the dreaded New Hampshire game in Buffalo from the Frozen Four and how the team looked like a squashed pound puppy for a few minutes after UNH scored the first goal.
Maybe in the off-season and in the early practices for the 2009-2010 season they will work on that all-important psychological skill of positive self-talk ... the ability to tell yourself that you are able to do what you're doing and that you have the ability to win. If this is already part of the team's work, great! It should just be re-emphasized then.
In any case, this was still a great, enjoyable season and I'm proud of the work the Big Red accomplished. Let's Go RED !
[quote CUontheslopes]Let's not forget how good our special teams were. It seems to me the biggest problem is our PP. We were something like 39th in the country. You can get away with being a great defensive team if you score 2-3 pp goals a game. When you don't...you struggle. I'm sorry, but the 03 team would be a beast no matter who they played. Of course, had a puck bounced our way in 05 or 06 we'd probably think Schafer was a genius and the system was great...[/quote]
Yes, the one thing I picture about the 03 team - after the stifling defense that wore everyone down - is Murray's beast of a shot from the point on the powerplay. And overall a strikingly effective special teams in general.
You can get away with 1 5x5 goal a game if you regularly bury 2 PP goals.
We were 0x5 yesterday, including 3 ones before our goal. I believe the stats showed we managed *one* shot on those 3.
[quote abmarks]
Gee Al, ignoring all of the people who happen to concur with me that we're playing the wrong style?
I never said it didn't hurt. It does (mostly because I have FF tickets this one rare year ;) )
[/quote]
My point had nothing to do with "style." It had nothing to do with how much you "hurt" because you have FF tickets. It was--as was the point of all of those I listed--that this year presented an opportunity like could never be expected and it was disappointing we were unable to take advantage of it.::bang::
[quote abmarks][quote Lowell '99]
QuoteLowell, you missed the boat- that was Tims point.
He and I are both saying you can't live with no offense.
2) I'm sure Schafer would love to have tons of talented scorers, and in fact, has brought in a few (Moulson, Knopp, Vesce, and Moynihan come to mind). What I'm not sure of is if your critique is of the type of players brought in or the style he prefers.
[/quote]
Just did a quick look at the database. As an arbitrary number I counted all the players woth 10 or more points on the 2002-2003 team vs this year. 0203- had 15 players at 10 or more point. THis year it was an abysmal 8. So we obviously scored more and it was spread out much deeper that year, which I think was our best team of the Schafer years.
I don't know wheteher our system has evolved (devolved), the breadth of the recruiting classes is not as good as it could be, or if we're doing the same things we have been doing but the world has changed around us.
All I know is my eyeballs tell me that we don't look skilled out there and I see guys go flying by us.
Yes winning means outscoring the opponent. But you need a margin for error- so that when the defense isn't working, you can shift gears.
Without a potent powerplay we haven't had more than one gear. I can't say what the solution is like I said, I just know that with rare exceptions like 02-03, we haven't done things right in order to deserve to be at or near the top of the heap.[/quote]
Agreed with the lack of scoring depth. We got essentially ZERO offense from the fourth line all season, and not enough offense from the third line (although they were on the ice for the lone goal this evening). And, you never got any confidence that our PP was going to score a big goal -- that, to me, was the killer last night.
Looking ahead, I think Jillson should be expected to significantly boost his production, and Collins will surely score more. Many of us believe Whitney has a nice future, and I think he'll be a fixture on the Power Play. It will also be nice getting the Devins back in the lineup. As I mentioned previously, the Junior stats of our incoming forwards doesn't indicate any high-end scorers among the group, and it is unlikely they will make-up for the production of Barlow and M. Kennedy anytime soon. Birch and D'Agostino look like solid D-men, however, so our blue line should be in good shape. Scrivens will be reliable, but you will get the inevitable softie now and then.
As long as we have no defections, we'll again be competitive in the ever-improving ECAC, but a return to the NCAA's (or even Albany for that matter) is no sure thing. That's what makes this type of defeat so galling. i agree with Jim that Bemedji was not in Yale's class, and this one was for the taking. I thought getting that first goal would have made all the difference, but giving it right back seemed to deflate us more than it should have.
I disagree that giving back the first goal deflated us more than it should have - I think it gave Bemidji State an emotional boost that was unfortunate for us, but that's not the same thing. Either way, we have to be able to play in a way that takes away our opponent's feeling that they might be able to beat us, and the 2008-09 team just didn't have that arrow in its quiver.
[quote lynah80]
Don't most (possibly all) Cornell players receive a fair amount of financial aid?[/quote]
Who among us can know? I can tell you McKee got nothing. One thing we are clearly unable to do with financial aid is buy off a blue chip scorer (a Gionta, a Vanek, a Parise, a Kessel) by giving him mucho bucks when his family doesn't qualify based on need.
On the topic of "soft goals," UHN's GWG in Buffalo was about as soft as they come, and it wasn't Scrivens.
[quote French Rage][quote Josh '99][quote Kyle Rose][quote cnunlist]that in every game I've seen Scrivens play in he has let in at least one softie..[/quote]
I don't know about every game, but certainly the second BSU goal was crap: Scrivens needs to stop those kinds of wrist shots from the top of the circle with no screen.
FWIW, that's where I started to lose hope.[/quote]It was a good shot to the long side, so credit the shooter for putting the puck where he wanted, but yes, Scrivens has to stop that. And the third one too. :`-(
We really are spoiled in terms of what we expect from Cornell goalies, aren't we?[/quote]
And the defender missed blocking that shot by like a half second...[/quote]
I sat behind the opposing goal for seven of the right periods in Albany, first or second row, and it was a reminder of how many colda-woulda-shoulda situations come and never get cashed in. A Cornell forward comes within a whisker of putting the puck between Kalemba and the net. The pass comes a fraction of a second too late or too early or the shooter's stick is off-angle for the pass when it arrives. Of course, you don't see the almost-goals at the other end for the other team. The two glitches we saw last night were more obvious, the long shot that Scrivens wasn't positioned for, and the rebound where Davenport was so quick he go past the puck that squirted free.
Regarding another part of the thread, yes, we are spoiled when we have an All-Ivy goalie but not the All-East or player of the year goalie.
I feel sorry for us fans and our yo-yo emotions. I feel sorrier for Mugford and the other seniors who might have had an amazing final act, knowing that everyone else thought the 2009-10 would be a more likely year. Give or take the early departures, which is grist for another thread, and let's see who feels the needs to start it how soon.
[quote Josh '99]
We really are spoiled in terms of what we expect from Cornell goalies, aren't we?[/quote]
Is it too much to expect an All American every year? I don't think so. ::crazy:: Scrivens is decidedly average. Not up to the recent standard of Cornell goalies, but not terrible either. His inconsistency drives me crazy, though.
I, too, think Schafer needs to stick/return to his style of big, punishing teams. Cornell is never going to be able to recruit enough quick, skilled players to play a run-and-gun style. With our reputation as a defense first team, the majority look elsewhere, and only a few fall in our lap. That reputation is not going to change in the near future.
I think Schafer tried to recruit more speedy skill guys in recent years, and it didn't work out. I think that for this team, moreso than other teams, Herb Brooks' "I'm not looking for the best players, I'm looking for the right ones" rings true. We need character guys who are going to buy into the system and work hard. If we can get one or two of those who have a finishing touch, well, that'd be most helpful. Just getting guys with offensive talent isn't going to help if they don't buy into the system (e.g. Tony Romano).
[quote DisplacedCornellian]
I, too, think Schafer needs to stick/return to his style of big, punishing teams. Cornell is never going to be able to recruit enough quick, skilled players to play a run-and-gun style. With our reputation as a defense first team, the majority look elsewhere, and only a few fall in our lap. That reputation is not going to change in the near future.
I think Schafer tried to recruit more speedy skill guys in recent years, and it didn't work out. I think that for this team, moreso than other teams, Herb Brooks' "I'm not looking for the best players, I'm looking for the right ones" rings true. We need character guys who are going to buy into the system and work hard. If we can get one or two of those who have a finishing touch, well, that'd be most helpful. Just getting guys with offensive talent isn't going to help if they don't buy into the system (e.g. Tony Romano).[/quote]
No one is saying you need a run-and-gun style, but you do need some offensive flair. The game has changed, and you can no longer win merely by recruiting tree trunks and grinders. If Yale can build a team with considerable speed and skill, surely we can too. All season long, the lack of finishing was painful to observe. (I remember walking out of Lynah after the second Niagara game thinking we had just won two games we could easily have lost, in part because too many Red shooters couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.)
Yes, Brooks's comment rings true, but it also rings banal.
Our hallmark is defense, but that has not hampered our recruiting in past eras. My introduction to Cornell Hockey was in the mid 70s. This was a period of high scoring and good goal tending.
Perhaps Mike needs to consult with someone who can improve the PP. The mantra of the 02-03 team, when playing good teams, was to play them even 5-5 & PK, and beat them with the PP.
Our power play is just plain poor and needs to improve.
As for the pain of losing, I think it was the fact that, at the 2nd intermission, I was starting to get the feeling that CU really was going to join me in WashDC. Watching the dream slip away, to a team that we could have beaten, hurt deeply...... More so than the losses to the Goofers & Wisconsin. This one is getting close to the pain of losing to UHN in Buffalo.
I have to agree. Scrivens just has not been good in big games. In fact, he hasn't been serviceable on many occasions. This season alone we had a number of big big games and he really let us down in many of them. Of course, he had some good games, but all of them seemed to come against lesser opponents. For example:
BU@MSG - terrible
North Dakota - absolutely awful
Yale ECAC Finals - abysmal
Say what you'd like, but he allowed more than his Goal Against Average in pretty much every big game. Now, of course some of that is attributable to playing better opponents in "big" games, but that's still not something Mckee ever did. The reason we loved McKee so much was he shined on the big stage - letting in 2 goals in his 9 periods or so of QF action. Scrivens just isn't that good under pressure unfortunately. He's not bad, but he's not going to win us games the way McKee tried to.
Last night's 2nd goal was on a great shot, but Scrivens didn't cut down the angle at all. The third goal went right under his goalstick...and that was a backbreaking mistake. Hey, you play with the team you've got, but Scrivens for Hobey? I'd rather see a recruit step in and challenge him for his starting job.
[quote cmoberg]Our hallmark is defense, but that has not hampered our recruiting in past eras. My introduction to Cornell Hockey was in the mid 70s. This was a period of high scoring and good goal tending.[/quote]
And no national championships. Sigh.
It is amazing to see the leading scorers then had 50 and sometimes 75 points a season. Although that was the much a result of a bunch of 12-3 and 7-1 games against a Princeton, Yale, or Brown. The playing field is more level now, so to speak.
Is it ever possible to recruit high scorers to a team that wants to focus on disciplined defense?
Thinking of the Scrivens-as-miserable-sieve comments earlier in this thread, my recall is that he's done a pretty good stopping breakaways. Most not all. And he didn't wander as far from the net as he did in the previous season with one or two noticeable exceptions.
[quote CUontheslopes]I have to agree. Scrivens just has not been good in big games. In fact, he hasn't been serviceable on many occasions. This season alone we had a number of big big games and he really let us down in many of them. Of course, he had some good games, but all of them seemed to come against lesser opponents. For example:
BU@MSG - terrible
North Dakota - absolutely awful
Yale ECAC Finals - abysmal
Say what you'd like, but he allowed more than his Goal Against Average in pretty much every big game. Now, of course some of that is attributable to playing better opponents in "big" games, but that's still not something Mckee ever did. The reason we loved McKee so much was he shined on the big stage - letting in 2 goals in his 9 periods or so of QF action. Scrivens just isn't that good under pressure unfortunately. He's not bad, but he's not going to win us games the way McKee tried to.
Last night's 2nd goal was on a great shot, but Scrivens didn't cut down the angle at all. The third goal went right under his goalstick...and that was a backbreaking mistake. Hey, you play with the team you've got, but Scrivens for Hobey? I'd rather see a recruit step in and challenge him for his starting job.[/quote]
I think this is unfair to Scrivens, who is as good as most goalies in Div 1, and who has often been lauded on this list. His rebound control can be iffy, and we all know what can happen when ventures out of the crease, but he's big and agile and has quick reflexes, and he's much more sound technically than McKee was. I don't know that I'd trade him for any of the four goalies that are in the FF.
Moreover, the focus on Scrivens in a way underscores the point many of us are making: that the present system depends too much on superb goaltending in the big games.
Having watched almost every game this season, I can tell you Scrivens is certainls <50% on breakaways. He gets beat a lot. Northeastern game was a classic example.
I'm not saying he's bad, merely that he's not clutch. However, there's a difference between being good and being clutch. Give me the guy who wants to be at the plate with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth, the guy who wants the ball in his hand with 3 seconds on the clock. It's an intangible thing and unfortunately I don't think Scrivens (as of yet) has it. He started off the year so promisingly and was clutch (See princeton win #1), but somewhere along the line it just never clicked.
I agree - we can't win consistently if we need a spectacular stand on your head performance from our goalie. That said, facts are facts. He's had a few big game meltdowns (UND, BU, Yale) and not had one great game. I'd love to compute his GAG for the playoffs and compare it to the regular season or his GAG against teams with winning records/PWR top 25. I guarantee you it's not pretty.
Honestly, I don't think I'd trade Scrivens for any of the FF goalies either and the loss is certainly not his fault when you score only 1 goal, but on the bright side, if he could learn to be more clutch in his sr year...look out - we could be really really back in a big way.
[quote billhoward]
And no national championships. Sigh.
It is amazing to see the leading scorers then had 50 and sometimes 75 points a season. Although that was the much a result of a bunch of 12-3 and 7-1 games against a Princeton, Yale, or Brown. The playing field is more level now, so to speak.[/quote]
It is a shame we did not not go far during that time. We matched up well with everyone.
Think what we could do now with the likes of Peter Shier, Roy Kerling, Lance Nethery, and Brock Tredway. No opposing team lead was ever safe from the fire power of those young men. Each of those forwards new how to finish! And Peter Shier had a slap shot from the point that was every bit as potent (maybe moreso) than Douglas Murray's.
But if memory serves, we were a bruising defensive team along with the potent offense.
[quote scoop85]Looking ahead, I think Jillson should be expected to significantly boost his production...[/quote]
Well, two goals next year would double his production from this year. He certainly has the speed and the skills, but he hasn't shown the grit to play with the big boys that guys like Barlow and Gallagher have shown. From what I've seen thus far, I'm not expecting a breakout year from him any time soon. I thought Collins looked good early in the season, then kind of disappeared. He simply needs to use his size better. I know the Manitoba JHL isn't the NHL, but he can't be satisfied going from 51 goals, 64 assists last year to 3 and 3. I definitely expect more from him next year. I've been pleasantly surprised at the offensive spark Whit has shown in his limited playing time. He and a healthy Mike Devin should provide more offensive creativity from the blue line than we've seen in a while.
I am a bit concerned about the forward production though, even if Greening and Nash stay. I don't think any of the incoming forwards are going to set the ice on fire. They seem to be playmakers more than finishers. And Cornell is definitely in need of the latter.
I'll reiterate my complaint about the lack of goalie coaching. I think someone like Ben would have benefitted hugely from it. As it is, he certainly has improved, despite the thrown-in-the-deep-end-now-swim style of tutelage. You think Alec Richards benefitted from having Mike Richter around for a couple years? I don't expect to see anyone but Scrivens in net next year, but we can also look forward to Iles coming in for 2010-11.
Considering the boys were pretty much held together with spit and twine down the stretch this year, I'm happy with their effort and how far they managed to get. Once again (except for that 3rd-rate engineering school anomaly last year), Cornell has to salvage the reputation of the ECAC in the NCAAs. The Red are a different team with both Devins in the lineup and likely could have taken Yale or Be-a-midget State if healthy. As it was, we had all better be damn proud of what they did accomplish. Thanks, Red.
Whether or not we would "trade Scrivens" or simply acknowledge mediocre play, he certainly should have stopped goals 2 & 3 last night. They were not difficult shots, with the second occurring at an angle outside of the circle and the third slipped under his stick when he was caught cheating to move right. Though both goals aren't exactly his fault, they could be stopped by several D1 goalies and certainly he should have stopped those two goals. Again, I am not placing blame for the loss on him (we certainly played a very questionable 3rd period), but he could have performed better to give the team an improved chance.
[quote HockeyMan]
No one is saying you need a run-and-gun style, but you do need some offensive flair. The game has changed, and you can no longer win merely by recruiting tree trunks and grinders. If Yale can build a team with considerable speed and skill, surely we can too. All season long, the lack of finishing was painful to observe. (I remember walking out of Lynah after the second Niagara game thinking we had just won two games we could easily have lost, in part because too many Red shooters couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.)
Yes, Brooks's comment rings true, but it also rings banal.[/quote]
I was waiting for this argument (and I'm not trying to pick on you). Can we wait a couple years to see what this Yale team will be? We've been a relatively dominant force in the conference for the better part of a decade. Meanwhile, the rest of our conference, with varying styles of play, has done exactly diddley-squat at the national level. Before we praise Yale as The Light for how they played this season, let's let them sustain that success. I would also argue that their success was predicated more on phenomenal work ethic, hustle, forechecking and great goaltending over having a cadre of snipers at their disposal.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any tweaks in the way we play or the way we recruit. However, I am saying that we are not in the position of Michigan and Minnesota for recruiting and, saying that, we have done a pretty great job when you step back and look at what this program has accomplished. I don't want to seem like I don't care about NCAA championships. I certainly do, and last night's game was incredibly painful in that regard. However, there is more to our college hockey season than the NCAAs.
That all being said, I don't see how you can argue there is a better program out there, with similar resources, at getting a shot at the big prize year after year.
Tanya and I made it back safely for those in Grand Rapids who wanted an update. The drive back actually went by pretty quickly and not too many issues with sleeping since we got to alternate.
[quote BCrespi][quote HockeyMan]
No one is saying you need a run-and-gun style, but you do need some offensive flair. The game has changed, and you can no longer win merely by recruiting tree trunks and grinders. If Yale can build a team with considerable speed and skill, surely we can too. All season long, the lack of finishing was painful to observe. (I remember walking out of Lynah after the second Niagara game thinking we had just won two games we could easily have lost, in part because too many Red shooters couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.)
Yes, Brooks's comment rings true, but it also rings banal.[/quote]
I was waiting for this argument (and I'm not trying to pick on you). Can we wait a couple years to see what this Yale team will be? We've been a relatively dominant force in the conference for the better part of a decade. Meanwhile, the rest of our conference, with varying styles of play, has done exactly diddley-squat at the national level. Before we praise Yale as The Light for how they played this season, let's let them sustain that success. I would also argue that their success was predicated more on phenomenal work ethic, hustle, forechecking and great goaltending over having a cadre of snipers at their disposal.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any tweaks in the way we play or the way we recruit. However, I am saying that we are not in the position of Michigan and Minnesota for recruiting and, saying that, we have done a pretty great job when you step back and look at what this program has accomplished. I don't want to seem like I don't care about NCAA championships. I certainly do, and last night's game was incredibly painful in that regard. However, there is more to our college hockey season than the NCAAs.
That all being said, I don't see how you can argue there is a better program out there, with similar resources, at getting a shot at the big prize year after year.[/quote]
Fair enough, though you're making too much of my Yale example. Having seen Yale play 5-6 times this year I feel confident in saying they're faster and more skilled in the offensive zone than the Red. No question. But I agree with you that their success in the ECAC had more to do with hustle, forechecking, etc. I was merely responding to the claim that we can't recruit finishers and so shouldn't even try.
Can we compete with the Michigans and Minnesotas for the Jack Johnsons of the world? Obviously not. But who is saying we can? I wouldn't disagree with you that we've done a "pretty good job" with the resources at hand. But it's also true that the Schafer system is focused on one end of the ice at the expense of the other, and that this was glaringly obvious this season. In each of the last four games, the Red could muster no more than one goal through the first 56 minutes of play. Not good enough.
With a night to digest the game and a season there isn't a lot to say that hasn't already been said. Not that that will stop me.
I was disappointed in the loss because I know that Bemidji is a team we can beat. As Al and others have said, we were handed as easy a path to the championship game as any 3 seed will ever have and we squandered it. Bemidji, while faster than us, did not beat us with speed. Bemidji beat us with precision. Their passes were crisper, their position on both offense and defense was more structured and they appeared to have more of a plan. They made, as far as I could tell, no mistakes. That is why they won.
At no point did I feel that we were getting outskated any more than usual.
And with all of that, Cornell still seemed to get scoring chances. They either squandered those by making an extra pass (badly) and or taking an extra stride and losing the puck, shooting wide or, when the puck finally went right where it should go, FANNING ON THE SHOT WITH AN OPEN NET JESUS CHRIST HOW DID GREENING MISS THAT PUCK!!! Ahem. We outworked them on the wall, won almost all of the early faceoffs and still managed to put almost no shots on goal. I don't think we tested their goalie until Kennedy shot the puck into his glove during the 6x5.
We traded cheap goals to start the game - Keir Ross's goal was more or less an accident and their first was a well-screened shot that I don't think the shooter would have expected anything more than a rebound. I wouldn't call the second goal soft. It was a seeing-eye goal that barely avoided a diving defender and Scrivens' right shoulder. The third goal was the fault of the defense, not Scrivens. IIRC, he squeezed the post and the guy banked the puck off of the outside of his leg. The puck should not have been in the defensive zone at all, but for an incredibly lazy clearing attempt right onto the stick of the defender on the point.
We lost because, as has been mentioned before, '08-'09 Cornell was not an elite team. We were a better team than our opponent (yes, RichS, I think we choked a little) but didn't play our best when we had to. So on back to back nights we won a game we shouldn't have won and lost a game we shouldn't have lost. It happens.
As I told Beeeej last night, I felt like we were playing with house money just suiting up for the regional final. The loss is disappointing but hardly shocking just two weeks after the RPI series. The opening weeks set the bar for what to expect from the squad too high and despite multiple setbacks I don't think we, collectively, properly downgraded them. They are a team that was, basically, one more loss at any time during the year from missing the tournament entirely. Given that, I'll consider an ECAC final and a first round NCAA win a successful season for this squad even if the game that ended the season "should have" gone better.
Not that anything in this tournament has gone according to the script, but BU's path to the title is going to go 4, 3, 3, 4. That's sick.
I'm rooting for Justin Milo. My animosity towards Vermont faded when they left the league.
I understand what you're saying but I think the most important point of my argument is: who has done better? We all agree that we can't recruit on a year-to-year basis with the mega-powers, so maybe, for sustained success and several chances at the frozen four we're doing a pretty good job on that front. Of course you try to add some finishers to the mix as much as possible, but I'd be much happier staying with the status-quo and tweaking rather than blowing it up, going with a new coaching staff or recruiting all skill types.
Schafer did not bring in Knopp (was there for 1995-96 season).
[quote ugarte]My animosity towards Vermont faded when they left the league.[/quote]If you're allowed to root for UVM, I get to root for BU.
As with the presidential debates, I simply want the ground (ice) to open up and swallow all four teams. Especially BU. But especially Bemidji.
[quote ftyuv][quote ugarte]My animosity towards Vermont faded when they left the league.[/quote]If you're allowed to root for UVM, I get to root for BU.[/quote]
Wrong. Because then you have to root for someone else too.
Not as much for 09, but 10 will be the first year of the Casey Jones effect. We already know about Ives but look for some strong recruiting classes and a continuation of our being a top 10 threat.
[quote HockeyMan]In each of the last four games, the Red could muster no more than one goal through the first 56 minutes of play. Not good enough.[/quote]Much better than what Yale managed in the NCAAs, though.
[quote CUontheslopes]I have to agree. Scrivens just has not been good in big games. In fact, he hasn't been serviceable on many occasions. This season alone we had a number of big big games and he really let us down in many of them. Of course, he had some good games, but all of them seemed to come against lesser opponents. For example:
BU@MSG - terrible
North Dakota - absolutely awful
Yale ECAC Finals - abysmal
[/quote]But then, he was great in the second North Dakota game, and pretty good against Princeton in the ECAC semi, and made some big saves against Northeastern.
[quote HockeyMan]Moreover, the focus on Scrivens in a way underscores the point many of us are making: that the present system depends too much on superb goaltending in the big games.[/quote]I don't think that's true at all. The second goal BSU scored was a pretty clear breakdown in the system in allowing an odd-man rush when Barlow (if I recall correctly) wiped out and lost the puck; Scrivens can't come out to play the angle too much on a 4x2 rush like that. The third one was a soft goal, and one he'd like to have back, but I think that underscores the point that it shouldn't have taken superb goaltending to make that save. The whole point of the present system is to prevent the other team from having too many really good scoring chances, thus minimizing the need for ridiculous goaltending.
[quote Josh '99] a 4x2 rush [/quote]
In real time it looked like 4x0 with two trailing defensemen.
[quote ugarte][quote Josh '99] a 4x2 rush [/quote]
In real time it looked like 4x0 with two trailing defensemen.[/quote]In either case, though, it represents a breakdown of "the system", not something that "the system" expects the goalie to have to handle on a regular basis.
[quote Josh '99]In either case, though, it represents a breakdown of "the system", not something that "the system" expects the goalie to have to handle on a regular basis.[/quote]
I guess I'd argue that a system fragile enough to allow a goal (say) 50% of the time a mistake is made is not ideal: even Cornell hockey players make mistakes. ;-)
I'm not arguing against Schafer's system; I'm simply pointing out that assuming it's possible for any team to execute on any system perfectly is equivalent to assuming false: you can prove anything if you assume false as your antecedent.
Do you think Jones will help pull in different talent? better talent? I vaguely remember someone saying he would help in Quebec because he spoke French? Sorry, I just am not sure what effect you think he'll have if you wouldn't mind elaborating.
[quote CUontheslopes]Do you think Jones will help pull in different talent? better talent? I vaguely remember someone saying he would help in Quebec because he spoke French? Sorry, I just am not sure what effect you think he'll have if you wouldn't mind elaborating.[/quote]From his announcement press release -- http://www.cornellbigred.com/news/2008/8/1/mih_080801.aspx -- "Jones spent the last 13 years at Ohio State, where he served in the same role as associate head coach for the Buckeyes. During his tenure in Columbus, Ohio, Jones served as the program's recruiting coordinator, a position he excelled at as he had five players drafted in the first two rounds of the National Hockey League Entry Draft over the last eight seasons."
There also were comments in an eLF thread shortly after his announcement that more or less said "tOSU is really going to miss him. He's awesome and will help with your recruiting."
Quote from: Whether or not we would "trade Scrivens" or simply acknowledge mediocre play, he certainly should have stopped goals 2 & 3 last night. They were not difficult shots, with the second occurring at an angle outside of the circle and the third slipped under his stick when he was caught cheating to move right.
The 2nd goal was one I know he wishes he had back, but the BSU kid did pick the far post so it wasn't a terrible goal. I don't know if anyone else noticed it but Davenport ran into Scrivens on the third goal. That's why his 5-hole was open and the puck squirted through. If Davenport's wearing a BSU jersey that's 2 minutes for goalie interference and no goal. Just bad luck on that play.
[quote DisplacedCornellian]I, too, think Schafer needs to stick/return to his style of big, punishing teams. Cornell is never going to be able to recruit enough quick, skilled players to play a run-and-gun style. With our reputation as a defense first team, the majority look elsewhere, and only a few fall in our lap. That reputation is not going to change in the near future.
I think Schafer tried to recruit more speedy skill guys in recent years, and it didn't work out.[/quote]
I completely agree. The style of game that Schafer coaches is the one he's comfortable with, and when he tried in recent years to add a bit more offense to the balance, it didn't work out so hot. Let the guy continue to do what he does, and if you want a different style of game, then we're gonna need a different coach to take us there. But even though we still have no championship since I first became a Cornellian (or was born, for that matter), I'm still content with Mike to be our man. As others have said, he's doing pretty well with the weapons he's been given (or, more accurately, can acquire).
[quote CowbellGuy]I don't expect to see anyone but Scrivens in net next year, but we can also look forward to Iles coming in for 2010-11.
[/quote]
I thought Garman was supposed to be this top prospect goalie who we were waiting for to be the starter. Is that not the case?
[quote HeafDog]I thought Garman was supposed to be this top prospect goalie who we were waiting for to be the starter. Is that not the case?[/quote]
Garman was heavily recruited and was expected to challenge Scrivens for the job this year. None of us are privy to what happens in practice, but one would think if he hasn't been put into rotation... well, we don't really know.
[quote tretiak]
Quote from: Whether or not we would "trade Scrivens" or simply acknowledge mediocre play, he certainly should have stopped goals 2 & 3 last night. They were not difficult shots, with the second occurring at an angle outside of the circle and the third slipped under his stick when he was caught cheating to move right.
The 2nd goal was one I know he wishes he had back, but the BSU kid did pick the far post so it wasn't a terrible goal. I don't know if anyone else noticed it but Davenport ran into Scrivens on the third goal. That's why his 5-hole was open and the puck squirted through. If Davenport's wearing a BSU jersey that's 2 minutes for goalie interference and no goal. Just bad luck on that play.[/quote]
It looked to me like the "fake the wrap around, drop the puck on the near side" for the third goal was a rehearsed play for Bemidji. It was set up when the Bemidji forward squeezed past the Cornell defenseman along the boards, to get into position for a wrap around. Scrivens may have been focused on preventing the wrap around. Some of the responsibility for the goal lies with the defense. But also, it was a creative play by Bemidji.
[quote Josh '99][quote CUontheslopes]I have to agree. Scrivens just has not been good in big games. In fact, he hasn't been serviceable on many occasions. This season alone we had a number of big big games and he really let us down in many of them. Of course, he had some good games, but all of them seemed to come against lesser opponents. For example:
BU@MSG - terrible
North Dakota - absolutely awful
Yale ECAC Finals - abysmal
[/quote]But then, he was great in the second North Dakota game, and pretty good against Princeton in the ECAC semi, and made some big saves against Northeastern.[/quote]
I don't agree with your criticisms. Scrivens had his bad moments this season, but the examples you site are not a good representation of them. Forget about BU@MSG. That was a long time ago. The whole team lost the Yale ECAC final game, not just Scrivens.
During the first half of the season, Srivens was outstanding. During the second half, he was good to very good. He gets blamed for a lot of things because he is the last player in front of the net. For the year as a whole, he was by far the top goalie on the team and the #4 goalie in the nation. Give the kid a break.
Once again, Cornell loses and we wonder if we would be more successful with a different coach or goalie. Lets remember, Schafer consistently fields a competitive team, one that can hold its own against national competition. I am sure Schafer would love to have a team full of Matt Moulson's, Doug Derraughs, etc. If you follow hockey,whether college or pro, the dream of having snipers is often an elusive one. They are just not that many around. Schafer is an excellent coach. He has a system that he thinks is the best for the talent he is able to recruit.
As for Scrivens, he must be doing something right. He has been successful. He didn't lose the Yale game. His team was exhausted and played tired.
Aslo, at the start of the year no one thought this team would be a frozen four team.
I have been following Cornell hockey since 1985. I continue to hope for more success for the team. Maybe next year.
Figured I would just throw my two cents in. I'm not sure many had visions of a quarterfinal game as a realistic goal for this Cornell team. I suspect all of us would have jumped at the chance to see the team make it this far.
I will echo the sentiment that this loss was tougher to take than Minnesota and Wisconsin. For once Cornell wasn't the underdog, it was a game that was there for the taking. There is also a reason that there was so much complaining when it came to Cornell's draw in Minneapolis and Green Bay. We knew it would take a huge effort for Cornell to upset a #1 seed essentially at home. This time around Cornell had no "home" team to deal with, and not even a #1 seed to play to advance (to a potential second straight game against a #4 seed). The path to the championship is unlikely to ever be that "easy" for Cornell.
The loss still isn't a reason to blow up the Schafer system. If anything their sound defense got them that far. Even against BSU, for the majority of the game Cornell kept them to the outside. Cornell had their physical and cycle games working, and credit BSU for not packing it in. They withstood and capitalized on their breaks. Which is really what this Cornell team was lacking. 2003, 2005, and 2006 made sure that other teams paid for their mistakes. This team never had that killer instinct (except for maybe Barlow during the playoff run), and no lead was ever really safe it seemed.
All in all it was a frustrating season, because at times they showed flashes of how brilliant they could be and other times, well not so much. Truthfully, I was terrified that Cornell's chance to save the ECAC's rep this year would die in a dominating perfomance by Northeastern. So this team made it one step farther than I thought. However, once they made it that far the ending was ever so disappointing.
[quote HockeyMan][quote DisplacedCornellian]
I, too, think Schafer needs to stick/return to his style of big, punishing teams. Cornell is never going to be able to recruit enough quick, skilled players to play a run-and-gun style. With our reputation as a defense first team, the majority look elsewhere, and only a few fall in our lap. That reputation is not going to change in the near future.
I think Schafer tried to recruit more speedy skill guys in recent years, and it didn't work out. I think that for this team, moreso than other teams, Herb Brooks' "I'm not looking for the best players, I'm looking for the right ones" rings true. We need character guys who are going to buy into the system and work hard. If we can get one or two of those who have a finishing touch, well, that'd be most helpful. Just getting guys with offensive talent isn't going to help if they don't buy into the system (e.g. Tony Romano).[/quote]
No one is saying you need a run-and-gun style, but you do need some offensive flair. The game has changed, and you can no longer win merely by recruiting tree trunks and grinders. If Yale can build a team with considerable speed and skill, surely we can too. All season long, the lack of finishing was painful to observe. (I remember walking out of Lynah after the second Niagara game thinking we had just won two games we could easily have lost, in part because too many Red shooters couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.)
Yes, Brooks's comment rings true, but it also rings banal.[/quote]
Thank You. Another believer. Amen
That second goal.. That was disgusting. The players on the ice completely broke down their play. Sure Scrivens could/should/whatever stop it. But at least 3 other CU players should have been in position and they weren't.
I don't usually see goals where our defense completely breaks down that way, so that's why it stuck in my mind.
Scrivens may not be the best goalie we've ever had, but I'll keep him thank you very much.
I think Shafer tried to change the team with smaller skilled players a few years ago. Those players didn't seem to like the defensive scheme and left the program or didn't work out. Now it seems like he is back to his tried and true formula of big bodied defense. The difference this year was that we were missing a speedy sniper to pair with Riley Nash. I also did not see anyone who could blast the puck from the blueline. The Cornell team overall is a poor skating team and pretty short on talent. I think this team truly overachieved.
We just need a Matt Moulson/Brad Chartrand type who can score. Unfortunately I don't really see one in the incoming recruiting classes but I will reserve judgement. Shafer has done an amazing job but somehow needs to bring in a couple of talented players to really make the power play buzz.
[quote jtwcornell91]So, looking back, this is the first time Cornell has lost to a lower-seeded team in the NCAAs since the 2003 semifinal, and the only time we've ever been upset in the regionals. (Even before the neutral-site regionals, Cornell's quarterfinal and 1/8-final series in 1981, 1986, and 1991 were all on the road.)[/quote]
To be more specific, since the start of the current regional format, Cornell is 5-2 as the higher seed and 2-5 as the lower seed.
One of the things that was driving me crazy during the game was Cornell winning all the wall battles and cycling well in the offensive zone... which is great... that's the way Cornell had to use its size to win this game. But there was almost never a passing option in the slot or someone driving to the net to turn the successful cycle into a scoring opportunity. And no, I don't necessarily count shots from the point as good scoring opportunities, unless we've got guys parked in front of the net ready to screen, tip, or pounce on rebounds.
I agree with the need for more offense... we can't expect to win consistently with 1-0 or 2-1 scores. granted we're used to it... but we've got to be able to win sometimes when our D or goalie isn't on. Our record when allowing 2 or less goals this year: 20-2-4. Our record when allowing 3 or more: 2-8-0 (both wins during the ECACs). You can get more offense w/o sacrificing the defensive play... ideally we need a good power forward who goes hard to the net with the puck. There were so many times last night, I just wanted someone to take the puck hard to the net and use their size to an advantage. It's not like Bemidji was punishing our players near the crease... nor am I sure they could have knocked our folks off the puck.
and yes, this hurt... because I also have tix to the FF. More than Minnesota... about the same or a little less than Wisconsin. Less than UNH. Less than idiot Koharsky not calling goaltender interference in game 7 of the Caps/Flyers series last season.
[quote srg1]We just need a Matt Moulson/Brad Chartrand type who can score. [/quote]Well I don't have the time to search, but I can certainly remember the multiple posts on why can't Moulson score. Things always look better in our memories, and I expect this season will as well.
[quote srg1]The Cornell team overall is a poor skating team and pretty short on talent. [/quote]
Is poor skating one of the team's problems? Doesn't Cornell own one of those few skating treadmills in the country? (I seem to remember watching a video about it). In any case, I'm not disagreeing with you, but was just wondering.
[quote oceanst41]2003, 2005, and 2006 made sure that other teams paid for their mistakes. This team never had that killer instinct (except for maybe Barlow during the playoff run), and no lead was ever really safe it seemed.[/quote]
It's hard to tell whether this was an absence of killer instinct or just killers. The three teams mentioned were incredibly intimidating. This year's team did not have that "back alley / broken bottle" mystique. They were solid, and talented, but they didn't have the mean streak.
This may just indicate that hockey as a whole is moving away from that.
[quote min][quote srg1]The Cornell team overall is a poor skating team and pretty short on talent. [/quote]
Is poor skating one of the team's problems? Doesn't Cornell own one of those few skating treadmills in the country? (I seem to remember watching a video about it). In any case, I'm not disagreeing with you, but was just wondering.[/quote]
If I bought a skating treadmill, I doubt it would make me and twenty of my friends one of the better skating teams in the country. I'm not sure what exactly a training device does for a team, but surely it's mere presence is not enough to eliminate all skating problems a team may have.
I'm not saying this isn't a good skating team, just bringing up the fact that a lot of fat people own treadmills, if you catch my drift.
Video of the skating treadmill (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhXvlLiVXCo)
Quote from: I also did not see anyone who could blast the puck from the blueline.
Mike Devin has a ferocious shot (I speak from experience). He also has no accuracy with it...
[quote tretiak]
Quote from: I also did not see anyone who could blast the puck from the blueline.
Mike Devin has a ferocious shot (I speak from experience). He also has no accuracy with it...[/quote]
Do we have a shooting treadmill?::blush::
[quote tretiak]
Quote from: I also did not see anyone who could blast the puck from the blueline.
Mike Devin has a ferocious shot (I speak from experience). He also has no accuracy with it...[/quote]That was also true of Douglas Murray when he was younger; it's certainly possible that Devin's accuracy will improve. (And, regardless of how accurate his shot is or isn't, it was unfortunately not a factor on Sunday.)
[quote Josh '99][quote tretiak]
Quote from: I also did not see anyone who could blast the puck from the blueline.
Mike Devin has a ferocious shot (I speak from experience). He also has no accuracy with it...[/quote]That was also true of Douglas Murray when he was younger; it's certainly possible that Devin's accuracy will improve. (And, regardless of how accurate his shot is or isn't, it was unfortunately not a factor on Sunday.)[/quote]The large number of NHL goals he has racked up attest to Murray's improved accuracy. :-D
[quote Trotsky][quote oceanst41]2003, 2005, and 2006 made sure that other teams paid for their mistakes. This team never had that killer instinct (except for maybe Barlow during the playoff run), and no lead was ever really safe it seemed.[/quote]
It's hard to tell whether this was an absence of killer instinct or just killers. The three teams mentioned were incredibly intimidating. This year's team did not have that "back alley / broken bottle" mystique. They were solid, and talented, but they didn't have the mean streak.
This may just indicate that hockey as a whole is moving away from that.[/quote]
... which is probably in everyone's best interest in the long term.
remember coach was really setting his sites on next yr, even before the playoffs started, as being the year they make a run. and thats with expecting Greening and Nash to leave. next yrs recruiting class is his best ever.
[quote upperdeck]next yrs recruiting class is his best ever.[/quote]
That can't be determined yet. Recruits might look good on paper, but no one knows how they'll react to the pace of the college game.
Really tough to judge how good a recruiting class is until they have a year or more under their belt.
[quote upperdeck]remember coach was really setting his sites on next yr, even before the playoffs started, as being the year they make a run. and thats with expecting Greening and Nash to leave. next yrs recruiting class is his best ever.[/quote]
Based on what has been written in the press about Greening's academic record, I think he will stay. Riley Nash is probably the biggest risk for early graduation at Cornell. When he started, he was quoted as saying that he doubted he would stay at Cornell for all 4 years. Another concern is that he was on the ice a lot in defensive roles this year, which took some of the jump out of his offensive game. In 2008, he was with the Oilers in their pre-season camp, so he has some idea for what to expect. If we are lucky, he will want to play with Brendon for another year. If we are really lucky, he has developed an appreciation for higher learning and will want to complete his degree. Maybe Mike will put an A on Riley's sweater to encourage him to stay. He could use the extra to time to build some more muscle.
[quote lynah80][quote upperdeck]remember coach was really setting his sites on next yr, even before the playoffs started, as being the year they make a run. and thats with expecting Greening and Nash to leave. next yrs recruiting class is his best ever.[/quote]
Based on what has been written in the press about Greening's academic record, I think he will stay. Riley Nash is probably the biggest risk for early graduation at Cornell. When he started, he was quoted as saying that he doubted he would stay at Cornell for all 4 years. Another concern is that he was on the ice a lot in defensive roles this year, which took some of the jump out of his offensive game. In 2008, he was with the Oilers in their pre-season camp, so he has some idea for what to expect. If we are lucky, he will want to play with Brendon for another year. If we are really lucky, he has developed an appreciation for higher learning and will want to complete his degree. Maybe Mike will put an A on Riley's sweater to encourage him to stay. He could use the extra to time to build some more muscle.[/quote]
Didn't he do an interview earlier this year where he essentially said he thinks his best shot is as a defensive 3rd line center in the NHL, so learning the defensive side of the game is a good thing?
[quote Jacob '06][quote lynah80][quote upperdeck]remember coach was really setting his sites on next yr, even before the playoffs started, as being the year they make a run. and thats with expecting Greening and Nash to leave. next yrs recruiting class is his best ever.[/quote]
Based on what has been written in the press about Greening's academic record, I think he will stay. Riley Nash is probably the biggest risk for early graduation at Cornell. When he started, he was quoted as saying that he doubted he would stay at Cornell for all 4 years. Another concern is that he was on the ice a lot in defensive roles this year, which took some of the jump out of his offensive game. In 2008, he was with the Oilers in their pre-season camp, so he has some idea for what to expect. If we are lucky, he will want to play with Brendon for another year. If we are really lucky, he has developed an appreciation for higher learning and will want to complete his degree. Maybe Mike will put an A on Riley's sweater to encourage him to stay. He could use the extra to time to build some more muscle.[/quote]
Didn't he do an interview earlier this year where he essentially said he thinks his best shot is as a defensive 3rd line center in the NHL, so learning the defensive side of the game is a good thing?[/quote]
Sorry, I don't know. This is interesting:
http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/riley_nash
[cliche] Not much more I can say on this thread. [/cliche] Everything I had wanted to say has already been said somewhere here.
The pain is more as a result of the inability to capitalize on a remarkable external situation instead of the greatness of the team. And for that reason, I'm much less hurt than '03 or '05/'06. I never expected the FF this year. To toot my own horn: (http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,135838,135906#msg-135906)
QuoteRe: Are we that good? (Cornell after 10 games)
Posted by: RichH (76.28.11.---)
Date: December 07, 2008 05:50PM
A 1-2 game stint in the NCAAs is a very reachable goal for this team. And they're fun to watch. I'm very happy right now.
And I'm still happy, and proud. The post I said that on was about a lack of "finishing" by this team, and they gave us some very memorable finishes in the past couple of weeks. Thanks, team.
The best therapies in order:
1) Going directly to the BOB after the game. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
2) Watching everything Marty has put up on YouTube. (http://www.youtube.com/user/martytoo) Multiple times. Thank you so much, Marty.
3) Reading this thread.
4) Repeat step #2
[quote Jacob '06]Didn't he do an interview earlier this year where he essentially said he thinks his best shot is as a defensive 3rd line center in the NHL, so learning the defensive side of the game is a good thing?[/quote]
That would show a level of awareness and maturity that it often takes guys years to reach (c.f., Manderville, Kent) but if he does understand that then this is an ideal environment for him. His TOI is higher, under more varied circumstances, than he'll get in the minors. Also: BMOC vs the bus leagues is no contest.
A check would change that, though. We'll see -- it will come down to what Edmonton wants him to do.
[quote Trotsky][quote Jacob '06]Didn't he do an interview earlier this year where he essentially said he thinks his best shot is as a defensive 3rd line center in the NHL, so learning the defensive side of the game is a good thing?[/quote]
That would show a level of awareness and maturity that it often takes guys years to reach (c.f., Manderville, Kent) but if he does understand that then this is an ideal environment for him. His TOI is higher, under more varied circumstances, than he'll get in the minors. Also: BMOC vs the bus leagues is no contest.
A check would change that, though. We'll see -- it will come down to what Edmonton wants him to do.[/quote]
I agree 100%--well, except that it may not come down *solely* to what Edmonton wants him to do. I think another year at CU would do a lot for his game, and have the added bonus (presumably) of allowing him to play with his brother one more year. He's not strong enough on the puck currently, which is why I would rate Greening a better NHL prospect at present.
[quote HockeyMan]He's not strong enough on the puck currently, which is why I would rate Greening a better NHL prospect at present.[/quote]
It was shocking how effectively both NU and Bemidji contained Riley.
Greening, OTOH... man, if he had just had a little luck at finding the net in the first period, that's a 2-0 lead and a trip to DC. But I'm not bitter. :-(
I still think Greening and both Nash brothers have the chops to be All-Americans. A team with all of them returning, a healthy Gallagher, some competition in net, and two major league blue chip D prospects coming in would really be special.
[quote RichH][cliche] Not much more I can say on this thread. [/cliche] Everything I had wanted to say has already been said somewhere here.
The pain is more as a result of the inability to capitalize on a remarkable external situation instead of the greatness of the team. And for that reason, I'm much less hurt than '03 or '05/'06. I never expected the FF this year. To toot my own horn: (http://elf.elynah.com/read.php?1,135838,135906#msg-135906)
QuoteRe: Are we that good? (Cornell after 10 games)
Posted by: RichH (76.28.11.---)
Date: December 07, 2008 05:50PM
A 1-2 game stint in the NCAAs is a very reachable goal for this team. And they're fun to watch. I'm very happy right now.
And I'm still happy, and proud. The post I said that on was about a lack of "finishing" by this team, and they gave us some very memorable finishes in the past couple of weeks. Thanks, team.
The best therapies in order:
1)
Going directly to the BOB after the game. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
2) Watching everything Marty has put up on YouTube. (http://www.youtube.com/user/martytoo) Multiple times. Thank you so much, Marty.
3) Reading this thread.
4) Repeat step #2[/quote]
Yes, those $2 pints at the BOB did help drown some sorrows. ::drunk::
I thought the Wisconsin loss was more painful because of how long that game went knowing just one weird bounce was all we needed.
After a few days, I too am happy with how the season went. Yes, the BSU loss hurt, because we know that if we had gotten by them, we would have had a decent shot in DC.
Unfortunately, our chances of landing a recruit who can find the back of the net > 75 % of the time is slim (I think we would have a better chance at a rule change allowing a team to decline a PP); thus I realize and accept that we will be a team that needs to win games 1-0, 2-1. However, to get that 2nd goal, as many others have mentioned, we need a much better PP. Is it that Schafer has an unchangeable PP scheme, our players are not creative enough moving without the puck, or lack of trust on the part of the players and/or coaching staff that in allowing too much off the puck movement?
There was a glimmer of hope on some PPs this weekend, when the point man would see an open lane and take the puck to the net. That should create some confusion with the D allowing us to either take the shot or find an open man down low.
Overall a very good season and here's hoping that the BSU loss fuels the returning players during their off-season workouts.
[quote Dpperk29][quote upperdeck]next yrs recruiting class is his best ever.[/quote]
That can't be determined yet. Recruits might look good on paper, but no one knows how they'll react to the pace of the college game.
Really tough to judge how good a recruiting class is until they have a year or more under their belt.[/quote]
I know we wont really know for awhile.. but for the coach to come out and be this excited is something good. as for nash/greening i think it just comes out to how much money they get offered. I think both have issues projecting into the pro game with the lack of speed.
Moulson scored more goals in each of his last three years than the leaders of the 2008-09 team. He disappeared periodically, but he was a threat unlike what we had this past year.
http://db.elynah.com/player.php?id=44
[quote srg1]Moulson scored more goals in each of his last three years than the leaders of the 2008-09 team. He disappeared periodically, but he was a threat unlike what we had this past year.
http://db.elynah.com/player.php?id=44[/quote]I agree that Moulson was a good scorer. My point was that people were complaining about him as well. People complained about our PP when it was reasonably successful. I guess my point is people complain.::doh::
And Rita, I know you said it in jest, but don't give up our PP chances. If we had them the whole game and it took 2 min for each score, we'd have 30 PPs per game and be scoring 4.5 goals a game.**]
[quote Jim Hyla][quote srg1]Moulson scored more goals in each of his last three years than the leaders of the 2008-09 team. He disappeared periodically, but he was a threat unlike what we had this past year.
http://db.elynah.com/player.php?id=44[/quote]I agree that Moulson was a good scorer. My point was that people were complaining about him as well. People complained about our PP when it was reasonably successful. I guess my point is people complain.::doh::
And Rita, I know you said it in jest, but don't give up our PP chances. If we had them the whole game and it took 2 min for each score, we'd have 30 PPs per game and be scoring 4.5 goals a game.**][/quote]
So can we clone RPI's Burgdoerfer and give each team we play one of the clones? Even if the Burgdoerfer clone spends only half the game in the box, we would have a chance, by your math, to get 2 PP/game. ;-)
It just seems that our PP at times kills any momentum that he had going at the time of the call.
To reinforce what others have said, look at these stats:
Score by Period 1 2 3 ot Tot.
Cornell 26 31 32 2 91
Opponent 15 26 32 1 74
[quote Rita][quote Jim Hyla][quote srg1]Moulson scored more goals in each of his last three years than the leaders of the 2008-09 team. He disappeared periodically, but he was a threat unlike what we had this past year.
http://db.elynah.com/player.php?id=44[/quote]I agree that Moulson was a good scorer. My point was that people were complaining about him as well. People complained about our PP when it was reasonably successful. I guess my point is people complain.::doh::
And Rita, I know you said it in jest, but don't give up our PP chances. If we had them the whole game and it took 2 min for each score, we'd have 30 PPs per game and be scoring 4.5 goals a game.**][/quote]
So can we clone RPI's Burgdoerfer and give each team we play one of the clones? Even if the Burgdoerfer clone spends only half the game in the box, we would have a chance, by your math, to get 2 PP/game. ;-)
It just seems that our PP at times kills any momentum that he had going at the time of the call.[/quote]I don't disagree with your last statement, and jeez you are fast.::burnout::
[quote Jim Hyla]To reinforce what others have said, look at these stats:
Score by Period 1 2 3 ot Tot.
Cornell 26 31 32 2 91
Opponent 15 26 32 1 74
Sorry about the page width:
2008-09
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 26 31 32 3 92 | 335 330 331 26 1022 | 19 15 20 2 56 | 190 192 193 12 587
Opponents | 15 26 32 1 74 | 304 312 322 28 966 | 9 15 16 1 41 | 191 186 215 13 605
Difference | +11 +5 +0 +2 +18 | +31 +18 +9 -2 +56 | +10 +0 +4 +1 +15 | -1 +6 -22 -1 -18
2007-08
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 24 41 35 2 102 | 280 326 342 9 957 | 16 23 19 2 60 | 164 192 191 4 551
Opponents | 23 24 31 0 78 | 340 361 311 14 1026 | 12 17 14 0 43 | 191 206 187 8 592
Difference | +1 +17 +4 +2 +24 | -60 -35 +31 -5 -69 | +4 +6 +5 +2 +17 | -27 -14 +4 -4 -41
2006-07
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 34 31 25 0 90 | 303 316 293 7 919 | 25 20 19 0 64 | 222 219 203 7 651
Opponents | 25 20 32 1 78 | 239 273 240 11 763 | 17 13 25 0 55 | 173 203 178 9 563
Difference | +9 +11 -7 -1 +12 | +64 +43 +53 -4 +156 | +8 +7 -6 +0 +9 | +49 +16 +25 -2 +88
2005-06
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 30 32 33 4 99 | 324 360 355 60 1099 | 20 18 21 2 61 | 211 219 218 7 655
Opponents | 29 25 22 1 77 | 267 284 258 46 855 | 19 15 14 0 48 | 166 175 161 8 510
Difference | +1 +7 +11 +3 +22 | +57 +76 +97 +14 +244 | +1 +3 +7 +2 +13 | +45 +44 +57 -1 +145
2004-05
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 34 49 26 3 112 | 344 378 284 19 1025 | 22 31 15 2 70 | 221 234 181 6 642
Opponents | 15 11 17 2 45 | 276 276 250 28 830 | 6 6 13 1 26 | 150 181 163 9 503
Difference | +19 +38 +9 +1 +67 | +68 +102 +34 -9 +195 | +16 +25 +2 +1 +44 | +71 +53 +18 -3 +139
2003-04
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 29 26 29 1 85 | 292 291 283 22 888 | 19 15 19 0 53 | 194 201 189 11 595
Opponents | 23 19 19 1 62 | 228 254 255 9 746 | 13 9 9 1 32 | 147 183 170 4 504
Difference | +6 +7 +10 +0 +23 | +64 +37 +28 +13 +142 | +6 +6 +10 -1 +21 | +47 +18 +19 +7 +91
2002-03
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 46 47 37 3 133 | 350 374 323 21 1068 | 30 37 22 0 89 | 230 247 209 8 694
Opponents | 15 16 17 1 49 | 246 248 243 16 753 | 8 10 10 1 29 | 144 156 142 3 445
Difference | +31 +31 +20 +2 +84 |+104 +126 +80 +5 +315 | +22 +27 +12 -1 +60 | +86 +91 +67 +5 +249
2001-02
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 29 51 38 0 118 | 369 357 304 30 1060 | 17 33 24 0 74 | 242 237 188 6 673
Opponents | 20 19 20 4 63 | 265 260 277 41 843 | 10 9 13 2 34 | 166 161 167 10 504
Difference | +9 +32 +18 -4 +55 |+104 +97 +27 -11 +217 | +7 +24 +11 -2 +40 | +76 +76 +21 -4 +16
[quote Trotsky]
2002-03
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 46 47 37 3 133 | 350 374 323 21 1068 | 30 37 22 0 89 | 230 247 209 8 694
Opponents | 15 16 17 [b][color=red]1[/color][/b] 49 | 246 248 243 16 753 | 8 10 10 1 29 | 144 156 142 3 445
Difference | +31 +31 +20 +2 +84 |+104 +126 +80 +5 +315 | +22 +27 +12 -1 +60 | +86 +91 +67 +5 +249
That '02-'03 team was pretty good, eh?
[quote Josh '99][quote Trotsky]
2002-03
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 46 47 37 3 133 | 350 374 323 21 1068 | 30 37 22 0 89 | 230 247 209 8 694
Opponents | 15 16 17 [b][color=red]1[/color][/b] 49 | 246 248 243 16 753 | 8 10 10 1 29 | 144 156 142 3 445
Difference | +31 +31 +20 +2 +84 |+104 +126 +80 +5 +315 | +22 +27 +12 -1 +60 | +86 +91 +67 +5 +249
That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.
[quote DeltaOne81][quote Josh '99][quote Trotsky]
2002-03
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 46 47 37 3 133 | 350 374 323 21 1068 | 30 37 22 0 89 | 230 247 209 8 694
Opponents | 15 16 17 [b][color=red]1[/color][/b] 49 | 246 248 243 16 753 | 8 10 10 1 29 | 144 156 142 3 445
Difference | +31 +31 +20 +2 +84 |+104 +126 +80 +5 +315 | +22 +27 +12 -1 +60 | +86 +91 +67 +5 +249
That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.[/quote]It was in because Lenny was interfered with.
[quote Josh '99][quote DeltaOne81][quote Josh '99][quote Trotsky]
2002-03
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 46 47 37 3 133 | 350 374 323 21 1068 | 30 37 22 0 89 | 230 247 209 8 694
Opponents | 15 16 17 [b][color=red]1[/color][/b] 49 | 246 248 243 16 753 | 8 10 10 1 29 | 144 156 142 3 445
Difference | +31 +31 +20 +2 +84 |+104 +126 +80 +5 +315 | +22 +27 +12 -1 +60 | +86 +91 +67 +5 +249
That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.[/quote]It was in because Lenny was interfered with.[/quote]
Meh. A regular season game that by March was completely meaningless. It didn't cost us 1st seed in the ECAC tournament, the ECAC Championship, or the #1 overall seed in the NCAA tournament. You want to get mad at a call, get mad at the high stick call in Buffalo.
Dammit, why'd you make me drag that up? Now I have to think about it. ::cry::
[quote RichH][quote Josh '99][quote DeltaOne81]
That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.[/quote]It was in because Lenny was interfered with.[/quote]
Meh. A regular season game that by March was completely meaningless. It didn't cost us 1st seed in the ECAC tournament, the ECAC Championship, or the #1 overall seed in the NCAA tournament.[/quote]
But it cost those of us who were watching the Colgate video feed the extreme annoyance of listening to their homer student announcers celebrating. ::flipd::
[quote jtwcornell91][quote RichH][quote Josh '99][quote DeltaOne81]
That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.[/quote]It was in because Lenny was interfered with.[/quote]
Meh. A regular season game that by March was completely meaningless. It didn't cost us 1st seed in the ECAC tournament, the ECAC Championship, or the #1 overall seed in the NCAA tournament.[/quote]
But it cost those of us who were watching the Colgate video feed the extreme annoyance of listening to their homer student announcers celebrating. ::flipd::[/quote]
Meaning the "Do you believe in miracles??" rip-off? (and then barking like wild dogs?) yeah, I'm pretty sure they lost all credibility for their lives as human beings at that point.
[quote RichH][quote Josh '99][quote DeltaOne81][quote Josh '99][quote Trotsky]
2002-03
Scoring/Shots (Overall|Conference) | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG | 1st 2nd 3rd OT TOT | 1st 2nd 3rd OT SOG
Cornell | 46 47 37 3 133 | 350 374 323 21 1068 | 30 37 22 0 89 | 230 247 209 8 694
Opponents | 15 16 17 [b][color=red]1[/color][/b] 49 | 246 248 243 16 753 | 8 10 10 1 29 | 144 156 142 3 445
Difference | +31 +31 +20 +2 +84 |+104 +126 +80 +5 +315 | +22 +27 +12 -1 +60 | +86 +91 +67 +5 +249
That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.[/quote]It was in because Lenny was interfered with.[/quote]
Meh. A regular season game that by March was completely meaningless. It didn't cost us 1st seed in the ECAC tournament, the ECAC Championship, or the #1 overall seed in the NCAA tournament. You want to get mad at a call, get mad at the high stick call in Buffalo.
Dammit, why'd you make me drag that up? Now I have to think about it. ::cry::[/quote]I didn't MAKE you drag it up, I was only talking about the stupid Colgate game. :-}
[quote abmarks]
1) You do realize they adjusted the officiating to call more obstruction and all that good stuff right? I'm not sure what would happen if you planted the 03 team into this year's season. THey'd be better than this year's team, true, but I wonder how much better.
2) Many have commented in many places that the rest of the ECAC at the least has adjusted over the years to our style of play. It's not just us... the other teams evolve too. Yale went from a bunch of hacks to a high-skill team.
3) It is a speed-skill game now. look at your final 4: 3 are speed skill teams (maybe 4 depending on what bucket Miami falls into)[/quote]
1 and 3 are the same comment, and the answer I'm going to give you is the same one I gave people in 2003 who claimed Cornell only won because they played clutch and grab hockey: Cornell did not win with obstruction in 2002-2003. The change in rules would not have hurt that team. At all.
The 2002-2003 team (and, to a lesser extent, the 04-05 and 05-06 teams) won with superb positioning in all three zones. They did not obstruct, or clutch and grab, any more than the average team (and when they were really good they did that crap a lot less than the average team). Most, if not all, of the players on those teams moved their feet exceptionally well, anticipated the play, and put themselves in the right place to disrupt the other team's system. In the offensive zone they cycled the puck relentlessly until the opposition had a breakdown, and then they would try to exploit that advantage. The 2002-2003 team was better than most at exploiting those opportunities, and I'd certainly like to see Cornell open things up in terms of forcing the issue off the cycle a bit more.
The other thing those teams had, which this team seemed to be lacking in the NCAAs, was a top-notch open-ice hitter. Murray was not fast, but he laid out speedy puck-carrying forwards in the neutral zone with astonishing regularity. The guy just had a knack for it. Still does, which is why he's been so successful in the NHL. Hornby was another one.
This team is not as successful because it isn't as good. It has nothing to do with the system. Someone pointed out the lack of production from the 4th line - well, the 2002-2003 team could beat you with all four lines. That makes a difference.
Cornell's system is, and was, built on footwork, positioning, and physical play. This year's team did not have the footwork and positioning of the great (and, yes, those were great teams - they just weren't the best in the nation) teams from earlier in the decade. It also lacked the depth - although I'm sure the injuries had a lot to do with it.
I'd love to see Cornell recruit a couple of guys who could put the puck in the net at will, but those guys have to be able and willing to play within the system, otherwise the team will score more but win less.
If there's one thing I would change about the system, I'd adjust the power play and breakout strategies to match the talent on the team, rather than stuffing the talent on the team into the umbrella (or that breakout play they've been running since 2001) and hoping for the best.
As for Yale, it's too early to say anything for sure but I think their recent success is a testament to their coach. Yale was generally a reasonably classy team under Tim Taylor, but apart from one year in the late 90s they were also pretty bad. I know Taylor is highly regarded, and I know he coached an Olympic team, and I'm sure he's a nice man and a good mentor, but let's face it - the guy was a below-average college hockey coach, and he coached below-average Yale teams for *decades*.
[quote Tom Lento]As for Yale, it's too early to say anything for sure but I think their recent success is a testament to their coach. Yale was generally a reasonably classy team under Tim Taylor, but apart from one year in the late 90s they were also pretty bad. I know Taylor is highly regarded, and I know he coached an Olympic team, and I'm sure he's a nice man and a good mentor, but let's face it - the guy was a below-average college hockey coach, and he coached below-average Yale teams for *decades*.[/quote]Which is why I get pissed ::pissed::every time I think about him winning Coach of the Year 3 times.And then they have the nerve to name the trophy after him!::stupid::
[quote jtwcornell91][quote RichH][quote Josh '99][quote DeltaOne81]
That was the Colgate game, right? I thought it was in.[/quote]It was in because Lenny was interfered with.[/quote]
Meh. A regular season game that by March was completely meaningless. It didn't cost us 1st seed in the ECAC tournament, the ECAC Championship, or the #1 overall seed in the NCAA tournament.[/quote]
But it cost those of us who were watching the Colgate video feed the extreme annoyance of listening to their homer student announcers celebrating. ::flipd::[/quote]
In retrospect, I kind of like the Gilbert Gottfried quality that the one guy had. If it had been a satire it would have been worthy of the old SNL.
Apparently Bemidji State is Miracle on Ice, Rocky Balboa, and the George Mason University basketball team all wrapped into one delicious taco.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/What-s-Bemidji-State-NCAA-hockey-s-amazing-Cind?urn=nhl,151851
[quote amerks127]Apparently Bemidji State is Miracle on Ice, Rocky Balboa, and the George Mason University basketball team all wrapped into once delicious taco.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/What-s-Bemidji-State-NCAA-hockey-s-amazing-Cind?urn=nhl,151851[/quote]
I was going to ask why Cinderella got left out, then I saw the title of the article.
Did they forget to mention any other underdog persona?
[quote amerks127]Apparently Bemidji State is Miracle on Ice, Rocky Balboa, and the George Mason University basketball team all wrapped into once delicious taco.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/What-s-Bemidji-State-NCAA-hockey-s-amazing-Cind?urn=nhl,151851[/quote](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bc6qV1Uloa8/SH898mo3SWI/AAAAAAAAAsM/v-aCdMhkk84/s400/homer_simpson31.jpg)
Mmmm... delicious taco...