Up and at 'em, boys. Harvard ate a loss to Colgate last night so both teams will be annoyed. Should be a fun one. Our annual Lynah East game too. Let's extend our winning streak against Harvard to 4, eh?
It sure doesn't feel right that our winning streak against them is at four, seems like they've had our number in recent years.
Quote from: chimpfoodIt sure doesn't feel right that our winning streak against them is at four, seems like they've had our number in recent years.
Three - a win in Jan 2024 at Lynah East and then two in the ECAC quarterfinals, as per Wikipedia. Winning today extends to four.
Sure hope they turn the tide today
Tried going back to watch the replay on ESPN+ but it's not on there for some reason
Looking at the game stats for SOG, Penny had 6
Kraft had 5.
Penney was able to convert at least
Kraft is due
The rest need to fire more pucks at the net
That's my take on it
Penney looked the best out of the forwards yesterday and came close to having a hat trick a few times
I watch the stands at Bright Center to see how many empty seats there are at the yet-again sold-out game. That is an other victory for Cornell in addition to the final score.
Speaking of poor attendance at New England rinks: Friday's Cornell at Dartmouth game shows an attendance of 2801. Thompson Arnea capacity is 3,500 seated, 4,500 with standing room because there is an incredibly deep concourse at the top, something that a lot of newer rinks (Quinnipiac, Colgate, RIT) do to help you cram in more fans for a handful of the biggest games. Friday's turnout looked less than 80% and begs the question of how many arenas count season ticket holders as attendees whether they come or not.
I think everywhere counts sales, not turnstile.
Players ranked by TOI:
Forward
1. Walsh
2. Bancroft
3. Castagna
4. Penney
5. Mack
6. Major
7. Kraft
8. O'Leary
9. DeSantis
Defense
1. Rego
2. Robertson
3. Kempf
4. Stanley
Bright looks empty.
Camera work is making me nauseous
OK lads. Let's go.
Quote from: arugulaCamera work is making me nauseous
yeah I feel the same
Rego!!!
Quote from: TrotskyRego!!!
Wait, already???
Very sloppy.
Harvard announcers have been good so far.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyRego!!!
Wait, already???
Sorry, no, he picked the pocket of a Harvard guy on an odd man rush. I should be more clear. :-)
Lost the audio?
Audio back.
Clarkson cooled down Union today, 4-1.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyRego!!!
Wait, already???
Sorry, no, he picked the pocket of a Harvard guy on an odd man rush. I should be more clear. :-)
Ohhhh hahaha. I was like, I'm still trying to decide whether to put on the Cornell or Devils game tonight and a Regoal would have made my decision for me :')
Cornell seemed to think they were playing Dartmouth again. Harvard is much faster. Looking like it's going to be a long night.
Trash talk in Greek, LOL.
Personally I think we are starting to look in control.
So, if you are not listening to the Harvard broadcast, I will relay a story. Fegaras and a Harvard player are both of Greek extraction. Fegaras blew his mind last year by trash talking him in Greek during their first meeting. This past summer, they were teammates for Team Greece, and became good friends.
I'm at the game and there's a long stoppage without any explanation but I saw Wolfenburg go down the tunnel
Game is on NESN for those of you in New England
Wolfenburg hurt, I would be surprised if we get a major for this. I haven't been too impressed with our challenges this year.
That was pretty long after the play. I don't think it was intent to injure though.
Reviewed hit to Wolfenburg to see if it was to the head. Answer was no.
Quote from: IcebergI'm at the game and there's a long stoppage without any explanation but I saw Wolfenburg go down the tunnel
The challenge was a high hit. It was late but not high.
Quote from: cth95Game is on NESN for those of you in New England
And Virginia, strangely.
That hit was incredibly late. (Refs missed it completely.) Down another player now.
That's the stuff. Keep setting those cycling plays up.
TMFP. Too many fucking passes.
Quote from: BearLoverThat hit was incredibly late. (Refs missed it completely.) Down another player now.
Ah beans... just what we needed...
We would be really lucky to get out of this period tied, feels like we've given up 5 breakaways or two on ones and now they're on a PP.
Faithful sound good.
Our penalty kill percentage isn't even good and that's not counting the three goals that we've given up about two seconds after powerplays ended.
Bad hit by Bancroft.
That should be 5 + GM. I hope they won't rule it that way.
You saw the camera that panned rink to stands to concourse to refreshment stand.
The sound level started way low. I thought I'd hit the mute button. The color guy seems like the mike is behind home. They deserve to be moved down by USNews.
Quote from: TrotskyClarkson cooled down Union today, 4-1.
I guess it's not so hard to win at Clarkson after all.
The penalties are going to doom us
OK. (1) Survive the 5. (2) Tie this up. (3) Go on to win.
And nyc.
Nesn that is.
This team is really trying hard to crush my enthusiasm for the season after the Nodak series.
Down a defenseman, down our best forward, down 1-0, need to kill a 5-minute major. Going off the rails.
Quote from: BearLoverDown a defenseman, down our best forward, down 1-0, need to kill a 5-minute major. Going off the rails.
Love trust and pixie dust? Um. Or something.
Quote from: chimpfoodThis team is really trying hard to crush my enthusiasm for the season after the Nodak series.
This team is going nowhere, at least until at least half of the injured players are back.
Likelihood of winning tonight is below 10%.
"This (https://www.reddit.com/) way to the egress."
Quote from: chimpfoodThis team is really trying hard to crush my enthusiasm for the season after the Nodak series.
It's a long season and you gotta trust it (https://hellogiggles.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/05/10/BullDurhamSusan.jpg?quality=82&strip=all).
Sporting gods want equalization after Cornell football success
REGO!!!!!
Quote from: TrotskyRego!!!
You are clairvoyant
Beautiful kill and goal.
Quote from: TrotskyOK. (1) Survive the 5. (2) Tie this up. (3) Go on to win.
(1) check
(2) check
Now we can say it!!
Quote from: Roy 82Quote from: TrotskyRego!!!
You are clairvoyant
REGOAL REAL??????
Wolfenberg out for rest of the game
Cameras pan the center ice area after Cornell scores. Noticed the guy behind the bench in the black Harley T-shirt. One of our people? Does Harvard interim president ride?
That first challenge looks a lot worse now, could've had goalie interference or offside on that but no I'd much rather blow it on an emotional challenge in the first period.
Without seeing a replay, i say the puck came out of the zone before the gosl was scored. Killer if we lose by 1.
Second assist added on the Cornell goal to... Ian Shane.
Harvard pp unit 1 played the entire advantage, too bad we couldn't push a man up they were pooped.
Cornell pp upcoming.
I know we're injury riddled but that doesn't explain the lack of energy. You'd think the guys getting more time would at least be hopped up and energetic
I see energy.
Special teams have been appalling, did Syer used to run them or something?
Nine shots and getting pinned defensively is what I'm seeing.
That was a good shift all around. It's not that we aren't skating hard. There is just a lot of looseness from both teams. For instance there are as few races to pucks or fights in the corner. The game is like a dogfight at a distance, it's not hand to hand.
Sorry 11 shots.
Quote from: chimpfoodSpecial teams have been appalling, did Syer used to run them or something?
FFS we killed a 5, give it a rest.
I swear the redditification of this forum sucks.
Quote from: arugulaI know we're injury riddled but that doesn't explain the lack of energy. You'd think the guys getting more time would at least be hopped up and energetic
Actually it does explain the lack of energy. Players have been way over-shifted two nights in a row now
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: chimpfoodSpecial teams have been appalling, did Syer used to run them or something?
FFS we killed a 5, give it a rest.
I swear the redditification of this forum sucks.
0-for-22 on the PP. Total embarrassment
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: chimpfoodSpecial teams have been appalling, did Syer used to run them or something?
FFS we killed a 5, give it a rest.
I swear the redditification of this forum sucks.
It was a genuine question, I know Syer took charge of the defense but did he do special teams too?
Quote from: chimpfoodQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: chimpfoodSpecial teams have been appalling, did Syer used to run them or something?
FFS we killed a 5, give it a rest.
I swear the redditification of this forum sucks.
It was a genuine question, I know Syer took charge of the defense but did he do special teams too?
He ran the PK I think.
Cornell hasn't gotten this dominated by Harvard for quite a few years. Looks like a total speed and talent mismatch.
Quote from: BearLoverCornell hasn't gotten this dominated by Harvard for quite a few years. Looks like a total speed and talent mismatch.
And yet it's still only 2-1
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: arugulaI know we're injury riddled but that doesn't explain the lack of energy. You'd think the guys getting more time would at least be hopped up and energetic
Actually it does explain the lack of energy. Players have been way over-shifted two nights in a row now
Could be. Otoh they're young. They shouldn't be exhausted.
Great shift. Keep pressuring!
Another good look set up by Robertson.
I'm feeling luck on this powerplay.
Cornell pp coming up.
THERE WE GO
OK, great. Now keep on coming!!!
Let's go win this thing in regulation, don't like the idea of going to OT against a skilled Harvard team.
The turnovers are getting a little ridiculous.
Another PP let's do this boys and thank you walshy for finally potting a PP goal
The announcers mentioned that Rego had something to say between periods. Seems to have awoken them.
Quote from: arugulaThe announcers mentioned that Rego had something to say between periods. Seems to have awoken them.
Rego motivational speech?? [insert eyes emoji here] over/under on f-bombs?
Into overtime we go, as was seemingly inevitable. Let's win this fucker.
Quote from: TrotskyInto overtime we go, as was seemingly inevitable. Let's win this fucker.
Point obtained, obtain more!!!
Whew.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyInto overtime we go, as was seemingly inevitable. Let's win this fucker.
Point obtained, obtain more!!!
Yes. This right here.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyInto overtime we go, as was seemingly inevitable. Let's win this fucker.
Point obtained, obtain more!!!
Yes. This right here.
Does shootout obtain us even more points?
I usually only care about the pairwise but we need a shootout win here if we're not gonna fall behind in the ECAC standings.
Woo.
YASS QUEEN!
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyInto overtime we go, as was seemingly inevitable. Let's win this fucker.
Point obtained, obtain more!!!
Yes. This right here.
Does shootout obtain us even more points?
Yes we got the extra point in league standings.
Yes yes yes. Love the D on the shootout.
Robertson being interviewed on nesn sounds like he's seven years old. Doesn't look it but sounds it
Not a good weekend but could've been way worse. Sweep next weekend will fix it all.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: stereaxQuote from: TrotskyInto overtime we go, as was seemingly inevitable. Let's win this fucker.
Point obtained, obtain more!!!
Yes. This right here.
Does shootout obtain us even more points?
Yes we got the extra point in league standings.
WOOT!!! MANY POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!
(I'm still trying to figure out how ncaa points works :') nhl makes sense and the ncaa has fuckin pairwise and my brain is fried thinking about that HAHA)
This team is capable of so much more than what they've shown so far this season. I can't tell how much of it is missing the players who are hurt and how much is the resulting line shuffling, but there's a shocking lack of cohesion on offense. Then there are the horrible turnovers, but at least tonight Harvard (clearly a better team than Dartmouth) created a lot of Cornell turnovers with their speed and pressure rather than Cornell passing the puck to Dartmouth players totally unforced. I think it's an injury and coaching problem more than anything. Player buy-in and effort is clearly there.
Getting 2 derp points outta that was great. No complaints. Come home safe.
Quote from: arugulaRobertson being interviewed on nesn sounds like he's seven years old. Doesn't look it but sounds it
Ben sounds like Brit Brit. I think it's charming and hilarious. Esp. with the pornstache.
Quote from: chimpfoodNot a good weekend but could've been way worse. Sweep next weekend will fix it all.
Well, it couldn't have been that much worse.
Quote from: arugulaYes yes yes. Love the D on the shootout.
Can anyone find another instance of 2 D men winning a shoot out on 2 shots? Gutsy move.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: chimpfoodNot a good weekend but could've been way worse. Sweep next weekend will fix it all.
Well, it couldn't have been that much worse.
We could have gotten dumpstered both games and left with zero points and a broken Ian Shane (knocking on wood) soooooo. It's fine. Regroup, enjoy the win tonight, back at it next game.
7 games went to OT today and they were all settled in a shootout. I totally think 3 on 3 is exciting in the NHL but it's so useless in college hockey. I want nothing more than for them to bring back the 20 minutes of 5 on 5 and I think most coaches agree at this point.
Quote from: BearLover... I can't tell how much of it is missing the players who are hurt and how much is the resulting line shuffling ...
since you know this i wish you would calm down. i know you didn't like the casey jones hire but he's not even in charge yet. let the team weather the injuries and see what the full strength squad looks like instead of rending your garments after every bad shift.
Ian Shane really prevented this from being ugly. Very important tie/SO win
Come home. Sweep. All is well.
In the post game interview, coach said he was very proud of the guys' gutsy effort tonight. He said they are down seven players, and the biggest thing they need to do is just get bodies back. I don't think he sees this team the way bearlover does.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: BearLover... I can't tell how much of it is missing the players who are hurt and how much is the resulting line shuffling ...
since you know this i wish you would calm down. i know you didn't like the casey jones hire but he's not even in charge yet. let the team weather the injuries and see what the full strength squad looks like instead of rending your garments after every bad shift.
Oh I didn't really have issues with the CJ hire. I was skeptical then that CJ would bring success, and I am even more skeptical now, seeing that Clarkson is off to a good start this year and Cornell seems to have regressed. But it's not clear to me who would have been a better realistic option anyway.
Cornell has been extremely error-prone this year. It's not just the injuries. That plus heinous special teams tells me it's a strategic issue more than anything. If I didn't think the team were capable of being good I wouldn't be so aggravated. It feels like we're blowing a great opportunity.
Quote from: cth95In the post game interview, coach said he was very proud of the guys' gutsy effort tonight. He said they are down seven players, and the biggest thing they need to do is just get bodies back. I don't think he sees this team the way bearlover does.
Considering the two problems I keep harping on are injuries and coaching, well...
Quote from: cth95In the post game interview, coach said he was very proud of the guys' gutsy effort tonight. He said they are down seven players, and the biggest thing they need to do is just get bodies back. I don't think he sees this team the way bearlover does.
hOW MANY???? christ almighty it's that bad?
Quote from: chimpfood7 games went to OT today and they were all settled in a shootout. I totally think 3 on 3 is exciting in the NHL but it's so useless in college hockey. I want nothing more than for them to bring back the 20 minutes of 5 on 5 and I think most coaches agree at this point.
It was only 5 minutes of 5 x 5 before the bastardization, but otherwise I agree.
Quote from: martyQuote from: chimpfood7 games went to OT today and they were all settled in a shootout. I totally think 3 on 3 is exciting in the NHL but it's so useless in college hockey. I want nothing more than for them to bring back the 20 minutes of 5 on 5 and I think most coaches agree at this point.
It was only 5 minutes of 5 x 5 before the bastardization, but otherwise I agree.
Maybe I'm going crazy but I thought they had a whole period and called it a tie if it was nobody scored. But even if I'm wrong I would honestly take 5 minutes of 5 on 5 over 3 on 3.
Tie resolution has been:
10 mins 5x5
5 mins 5x5
5 mins 3x3
The last of which is garbage but what isn't since, say, the death of D. Boon.
I remember full periods too of OT from when I was a student bc I remember some games being really long but I could be wrong. Was a long time ago.
It was only 5 minutes of 5 x 5 before the bastardization, but otherwise I agree.[/quote]Maybe I'm going crazy but I thought they had a whole period and called it a tie if it was nobody scored. But even if I'm wrong I would honestly take 5 minutes of 5 on 5 over 3 on 3.[/quote]
Quote from: chimpfoodQuote from: martyQuote from: chimpfood7 games went to OT today and they were all settled in a shootout. I totally think 3 on 3 is exciting in the NHL but it's so useless in college hockey. I want nothing more than for them to bring back the 20 minutes of 5 on 5 and I think most coaches agree at this point.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: chimpfoodNot a good weekend but could've been way worse. Sweep next weekend will fix it all.
Well, it couldn't have been that much worse.
Well, it could have been worse. That youth team in yellow jerseys, sitting up and to the right of the player benches, suppose one of the Cantabs exposed himself in a different form of post-game handshake. #lossmanagement
I looked back at the highlights and a few things:
There were several stupid or unnecessary penalties...on both sides. The Bancroft hit that resulted in the major got a lot of attention but the boarding penalty Harvard's MacDonald took late in the 3rd was peak idiocy and resulted in Cornell tying the game on a nice low-slot passing play.
The 2nd Harvard goal should've been called back for being offside. I wasn't sure at first in real time since I was at the other end of the ice, but on the highlights, it's clear that a portion of the puck was over the blue line. Too bad Cornell couldn't challenge at that point.
The 1st Harvard goal was some of the worst PK coverage I've ever seen. No way should a player be left alone like that in front of the net. Net front defense improved as the game went on but definitely some of the same issues we saw last weekend
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: ugarteQuote from: BearLover... I can't tell how much of it is missing the players who are hurt and how much is the resulting line shuffling ...
since you know this i wish you would calm down. i know you didn't like the casey jones hire but he's not even in charge yet. let the team weather the injuries and see what the full strength squad looks like instead of rending your garments after every bad shift.
Oh I didn't really have issues with the CJ hire. I was skeptical then that CJ would bring success, and I am even more skeptical now, seeing that Clarkson is off to a good start this year and Cornell seems to have regressed. But it's not clear to me who would have been a better realistic option anyway.
Cornell has been extremely error-prone this year. It's not just the injuries. That plus heinous special teams tells me it's a strategic issue more than anything. If I didn't think the team were capable of being good I wouldn't be so aggravated. It feels like we're blowing a great opportunity.
It's only been 6 games. Not exactly a large sample size.
And I don't see how you end up at the team have a "strategic issue". Injuries dont point at strategy. Taking your argument about being error prone, that doesn't point to strategy either, that points to execution. Look back at the breakaway v Harvard that Regi raced back to break up from behind...from the stream it looked like a plain old bad bounce at the blue line that let the puck out of the o-zone. Whether it's execution or puck luck, that chance wasn't about strategy.
As for special teams, part of that has got to losing seger and his faceoff mastery. The injuries have to hurt a lot here as well. It'd be interesting to see how many different pp and pk unit combos have been used so far this year, it's got to be unusually high.from the injuries and then add in bancrofts game misconduct.
We might not have looked good in many spots so far, but we're 3-1-2, with our sole loss being by one goal. We're sitting 8th in RPI.
Could we have more points? Absolutely.
Could we have fewer points? Probably even more likely.
I'll take the glass half full here. We are out of sync and playing ugly, but we're more than treading water. We might even be overachieving once you factor in the injury bug.
Bearlover, what specifically are the strategic errors you think are being made? I may disagree with you almost always, but usually there's meat on the bone from your end. But you've provided nothing to support your strategy and coaching argument.
What are you arguing we're doing wrong strategically?
Quote from: IcebergI looked back at the highlights and a few things:
There were several stupid or unnecessary penalties...on both sides. The Bancroft hit that resulted in the major got a lot of attention but the boarding penalty Harvard's MacDonald took late in the 3rd was peak idiocy and resulted in Cornell tying the game on a nice low-slot passing play.
The 2nd Harvard goal should've been called back for being offside. I wasn't sure at first in real time since I was at the other end of the ice, but on the highlights, it's clear that a portion of the puck was over the blue line. Too bad Cornell couldn't challenge at that point.
The 1st Harvard goal was some of the worst PK coverage I've ever seen. No way should a player be left alone like that in front of the net. Net front defense improved as the game went on but definitely some of the same issues we saw last weekend
Was there another angle that they showed of the potential offsides? From the main camera angle, I saw no sliver of ice in between the puck and the blue line, and certainly not anything to overturn the call on the ice (good goal). But maybe another angle showed differently? FWIW, Schafer could have challenged, but Cornell would have gotten a penalty if he lost. They have an assistant upstairs who monitors these things, and he must have deemed it not worth the risk.
We never led the whole weekend. Considering that, 2 points is ok
Rego was a beast last night.
The Harvard announcers were quite good.
Quote from: arugulaWe never led the whole weekend. Considering that, 2 points is ok
I think we aim for 4 points every weekend for cromulence and 5 for happiness. The first two weekends we got 4 and 2 points respectively, so we are -2 at the moment. Let's get back on beam.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: arugulaWe never led the whole weekend. Considering that, 2 points is ok
I think we aim for 4 points every weekend for cromulence and 5 for happiness. The first two weekends we got 4 and 2 points respectively, so we are -2 at the moment. Let's get back on beam.
Obviously but as the announcers said, good teams win when they play well, great teams win when they play badly. With all the injuries and not quite being in synch, and not leading all weekend, this was not a disaster.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: arugulaWe never led the whole weekend. Considering that, 2 points is ok
I think we aim for 4 points every weekend for cromulence and 5 for happiness. The first two weekends we got 4 and 2 points respectively, so we are -2 at the moment. Let's get back on beam.
It's more about the pairwise. Shootout points don't matter for that. If we play North Dakota, a win and a tie is a good weekend. If we beat and tie Yale and Brown at home, that's not a good weekend. If we lose and tie to Harvard and Dartmouth, even on the road, that's a very bad weekend. Do we have national title aspirations? If so, this has been a bad start. We've dug ourselves a hole in the Pairwise. The PWR itself won't start to shake out for another few weeks, but we'd be outside the NCAA if you extrapolate the first six games across the rest of the season.
ECAC standings aren't that important. All that really matters is getting a first round bye. If we aren't a top 4 ECAC team, then we're having a very bad year. If we are, then all that matters is the Pairwise anyway because we've already achieved the most important prize of the ECAC regular season.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: arugulaWe never led the whole weekend. Considering that, 2 points is ok
I think we aim for 4 points every weekend for cromulence and 5 for happiness. The first two weekends we got 4 and 2 points respectively, so we are -2 at the moment. Let's get back on beam.
It's more about the pairwise. Shootout points don't matter for that. If we play North Dakota, a win and a tie is a good weekend. If we beat and tie Yale and Brown at home, that's not a good weekend. If we lose and tie to Harvard and Dartmouth, even on the road, that's a very bad weekend. Do we have national title aspirations? If so, this has been a bad start. We've dug ourselves a hole in the Pairwise. The PWR itself won't start to shake out for another few weeks, but we'd be outside the NCAA if you extrapolate the first six games across the rest of the season.
ECAC standings aren't that important. All that really matters is getting a first round bye. If we aren't a top 4 ECAC team, then we're having a very bad year. If we are, then all that matters is the Pairwise anyway because we've already achieved the most important prize of the ECAC regular season.
The pairwise is 99% just RPI, with maybe a few irregularities from head to head and common opponents here and there.
We're 8th in RPI.
Quote from: DafatoneQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: arugulaWe never led the whole weekend. Considering that, 2 points is ok
I think we aim for 4 points every weekend for cromulence and 5 for happiness. The first two weekends we got 4 and 2 points respectively, so we are -2 at the moment. Let's get back on beam.
It's more about the pairwise. Shootout points don't matter for that. If we play North Dakota, a win and a tie is a good weekend. If we beat and tie Yale and Brown at home, that's not a good weekend. If we lose and tie to Harvard and Dartmouth, even on the road, that's a very bad weekend. Do we have national title aspirations? If so, this has been a bad start. We've dug ourselves a hole in the Pairwise. The PWR itself won't start to shake out for another few weeks, but we'd be outside the NCAA if you extrapolate the first six games across the rest of the season.
ECAC standings aren't that important. All that really matters is getting a first round bye. If we aren't a top 4 ECAC team, then we're having a very bad year. If we are, then all that matters is the Pairwise anyway because we've already achieved the most important prize of the ECAC regular season.
The pairwise is 99% just RPI, with maybe a few irregularities from head to head and common opponents here and there.
We're 8th in RPI.
I get that. I'm saying that RPI is pretty meaningless at this point with so few games played (at least for the Ivies). It's too circular to conclude anything. For example: Princeton is 1-2-1 against H,D,Y,B and is 24th in the PWR.
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: ugarteQuote from: BearLover... I can't tell how much of it is missing the players who are hurt and how much is the resulting line shuffling ...
since you know this i wish you would calm down. i know you didn't like the casey jones hire but he's not even in charge yet. let the team weather the injuries and see what the full strength squad looks like instead of rending your garments after every bad shift.
Oh I didn't really have issues with the CJ hire. I was skeptical then that CJ would bring success, and I am even more skeptical now, seeing that Clarkson is off to a good start this year and Cornell seems to have regressed. But it's not clear to me who would have been a better realistic option anyway.
Cornell has been extremely error-prone this year. It's not just the injuries. That plus heinous special teams tells me it's a strategic issue more than anything. If I didn't think the team were capable of being good I wouldn't be so aggravated. It feels like we're blowing a great opportunity.
It's only been 6 games. Not exactly a large sample size.
And I don't see how you end up at the team have a "strategic issue". Injuries dont point at strategy. Taking your argument about being error prone, that doesn't point to strategy either, that points to execution. Look back at the breakaway v Harvard that Regi raced back to break up from behind...from the stream it looked like a plain old bad bounce at the blue line that let the puck out of the o-zone. Whether it's execution or puck luck, that chance wasn't about strategy.
As for special teams, part of that has got to losing seger and his faceoff mastery. The injuries have to hurt a lot here as well. It'd be interesting to see how many different pp and pk unit combos have been used so far this year, it's got to be unusually high.from the injuries and then add in bancrofts game misconduct.
We might not have looked good in many spots so far, but we're 3-1-2, with our sole loss being by one goal. We're sitting 8th in RPI.
Could we have more points? Absolutely.
Could we have fewer points? Probably even more likely.
I'll take the glass half full here. We are out of sync and playing ugly, but we're more than treading water. We might even be overachieving once you factor in the injury bug.
Bearlover, what specifically are the strategic errors you think are being made? I may disagree with you almost always, but usually there's meat on the bone from your end. But you've provided nothing to support your strategy and coaching argument.
What are you arguing we're doing wrong strategically?
First of all, I'm pretty sure the first PP unit of Bancroft-Walsh-Major-Castagna-Robertson has been the exact same for almost the entire year (obviously Bancroft got DQ'd last night). Off the second PP unit, they've lost Psenicka and Mack at points I think.
On strategy/coaching, I'm no expert. On the PP and the offense more broadly, there's little fluidity and way too much hesitating. I actually thought this improved somewhat this past weekend. On the PK, Cornell has done a horrible job tying up/boxing out guys in front of the net. They've been scored on this way by Harvard and twice by Yale and probably some other times I've forgotten. Traditionally, with Syer coaching the PK, Cornell has rarely given up these types of goals. Given that the players are almost exactly the same as last year's team while the coaches are different, that suggests to me it's a coaching issue. More broadly, special teams are probably the two most coachable part of hockey, and it is special teams where Cornell has failed the most this season, by far.
When I watch Cornell play, I can tell their players are good. Moreover, they were good for a full season last year. The issue is that their decisionmaking has been terrible. Bad turnovers, converging on the wrong guy on the PK, failing to clear the puck even with time and space. That's a coaching issue as much as anything. If the players aren't executing, the coaches need to better coach them how to execute.
Quote from: BearLoverTraditionally, with Syer coaching the PK, Cornell has rarely given up these types of goals.
We were 37th in the nation last year; thus, not exactly "tearing it up" in Syer's last year. It irked me all last year.
PK is personnel and dedication. We've traditionally had some "hard men"-type seniors who make it a point of pride. Andreev comes to mind. If this year's seniors want to have a great year, someone will have to step up.
I'm sure someone will.
Whether it's PWR or RPI or conference percentage the prescription is the same. Just win.
I try to capture a feeling for where we are in terms of ECAC warmth (http://www.tbrw.info/?/weekly_Updates/cornell_Warmth_ECAC.html) during the season -- it's a vibe check. Given expectations the goal should be to get to orange (5 over .500) as soon as possible and then march relentlessly towards red (10 over) to number among the best Schafer squads. I am personally hoping we can move into the orange by game 11 and into the red by game 22. That would feel good. NC RS games will take care of themselves, and they have a great start.
And then the post-season is a crapshoot.
But at the end of the day: just win baby.
Quote from: BearLoverOn the PP and the offense more broadly, there's little fluidity and way too much hesitating. I actually thought this improved somewhat this past weekend.
Our guys seem rooted to one spot on pp. They try to open lanes by passing back and forth forcing the defenders to adjust. But a good pp combines that passing with movement, both by the guy with the puck and the potential pass recipients. It makes defense 100x harder. It also makes playmaking 100x harder but I swear our players have the intelligence and skills. Making the environment harder helps IMO separate the better teams -- it helps us say pull away from Brown so we don't need a miracle finish.
Quote from: TrotskyTie resolution has been:
10 mins 5x5
5 mins 5x5
5 mins 3x3
The last of which is garbage but what isn't since, say, the death of D. Boon.
I would say the death of Bob Stinson but I just wanted to recognize the reference.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: BearLoverOn the PP and the offense more broadly, there's little fluidity and way too much hesitating. I actually thought this improved somewhat this past weekend.
Our guys seem rooted to one spot on pp. They try to open lanes by passing back and forth forcing the defenders to adjust. But a good pp combines that passing with movement, both by the guy with the puck and the potential pass recipients. It makes defense 100x harder. It also makes playmaking 100x harder but I swear our players have the intelligence and skills. Making the environment harder helps IMO separate the better teams -- it helps us say pull away from Brown so we don't need a miracle finish.
My problem is that they're hesitating too long after receiving passes. It's either good ol' indecision or taking too much time winding up for a wicked slappah. Instead, they should flick it on net every time we have a screen set up and close in to clean up the garbage. If a flick gets blocked, it usually doesn't end up squirting out past the blue line. We just have to track it down and try again.
We don't need to try to blow a hole through the goalie's chest every time. Just put it low and look for rebounds.
To address exactly what you describe, I agree that it's probably necessary against good teams to get a lot of movement that sets up slappahs. Against Brown, however, you just have to get it on net over and over and react quicker than they do, which we will.
Quote from: arugulaQuote from: TrotskyTie resolution has been:
10 mins 5x5
5 mins 5x5
5 mins 3x3
The last of which is garbage but what isn't since, say, the death of D. Boon.
I would say the death of Bob Stinson but I just wanted to recognize the reference.
Had no idea he (https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81d+oCfihHL._UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg) was dead.
All rise for the Weltanschauung before ChildWorld (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDr25zjd4yM&ab_channel=Samguitar27).
"But hey, enjoy that videogame."
Quote from: martyQuote from: arugulaYes yes yes. Love the D on the shootout.
Can anyone find another instance of 2 D men winning a shoot out on 2 shots? Gutsy move.
Is it possible that Rego could have been third in line for the shootout if it had gone that far? Looks genius now unless we later find out they went Billy Martin style and pulled the order out of a hat.
Have I ever mentioned how much I hate the ice scrape? The NHL did away with it right away. Why is the NCAA still requiring it? Makes everyone sit around unnecessarily.
Quote from: IcebergI looked back at the highlights and a few things:
There were several stupid or unnecessary penalties...on both sides. The Bancroft hit that resulted in the major got a lot of attention but the boarding penalty Harvard's MacDonald took late in the 3rd was peak idiocy and resulted in Cornell tying the game on a nice low-slot passing play.
The 2nd Harvard goal should've been called back for being offside. I wasn't sure at first in real time since I was at the other end of the ice, but on the highlights, it's clear that a portion of the puck was over the blue line. Too bad Cornell couldn't challenge at that point.
The 1st Harvard goal was some of the worst PK coverage I've ever seen. No way should a player be left alone like that in front of the net. Net front defense improved as the game went on but definitely some of the same issues we saw last weekend
The entire puck has to be all the way across the blue line into the neutral zone, not just a portion of it, before its return to the offensive zone results in an offside.
Quote from: ERI remember full periods too of OT from when I was a student bc I remember some games being really long but I could be wrong. Was a long time ago.
It was only 5 minutes of 5 x 5 before the bastardization, but otherwise I agree.
Maybe I'm going crazy but I thought they had a whole period and called it a tie if it was nobody scored. But even if I'm wrong I would honestly take 5 minutes of 5 on 5 over 3 on 3.[/quote]
Quote from: chimpfoodQuote from: martyQuote from: chimpfood7 games went to OT today and they were all settled in a shootout. I totally think 3 on 3 is exciting in the NHL but it's so useless in college hockey. I want nothing more than for them to bring back the 20 minutes of 5 on 5 and I think most coaches agree at this point.
The 1968-69 rule book that I bought freshman year specifies 10 minutes of overtime, as does the '74-'75 book I bought as a graduate student. Teams stayed in the bench area between the end of regualr time and overtime. I was also interested to note as I looked back that the time between regular periods increased from 10 minutes to 15 minutes between the two publications.
Quote from: ERI remember full periods too of OT from when I was a student bc I remember some games being really long but I could be wrong. Was a long time ago.
Could it be that you have memories of playoff games mixed in there?
5 (or 10) minutes OT vs 20 minutes is an important distinction for long-game purposes because you have to resurface the ice for the latter and not for the former.
Quote from: David HardingQuote from: ERI remember full periods too of OT from when I was a student bc I remember some games being really long but I could be wrong. Was a long time ago.
It was only 5 minutes of 5 x 5 before the bastardization, but otherwise I agree.
Maybe I'm going crazy but I thought they had a whole period and called it a tie if it was nobody scored. But even if I'm wrong I would honestly take 5 minutes of 5 on 5 over 3 on 3.
Quote from: chimpfoodQuote from: martyQuote from: chimpfood7 games went to OT today and they were all settled in a shootout. I totally think 3 on 3 is exciting in the NHL but it's so useless in college hockey. I want nothing more than for them to bring back the 20 minutes of 5 on 5 and I think most coaches agree at this point.
The 1968-69 rule book that I bought freshman year specifies 10 minutes of overtime, as does the '74-'75 book I bought as a graduate student. Teams stayed in the bench area between the end of regualr time and overtime. I was also interested to note as I looked back that the time between regular periods increased from 10 minutes to 15 minutes between the two publications.
When I was a student from 81-85, it was a 10 minute OT at 5 x 5.
Quote from: scoop85Quote from: David HardingQuote from: ERI remember full periods too of OT from when I was a student bc I remember some games being really long but I could be wrong. Was a long time ago.
It was only 5 minutes of 5 x 5 before the bastardization, but otherwise I agree.
Maybe I'm going crazy but I thought they had a whole period and called it a tie if it was nobody scored. But even if I'm wrong I would honestly take 5 minutes of 5 on 5 over 3 on 3.
Quote from: chimpfoodQuote from: martyQuote from: chimpfood7 games went to OT today and they were all settled in a shootout. I totally think 3 on 3 is exciting in the NHL but it's so useless in college hockey. I want nothing more than for them to bring back the 20 minutes of 5 on 5 and I think most coaches agree at this point.
The 1968-69 rule book that I bought freshman year specifies 10 minutes of overtime, as does the '74-'75 book I bought as a graduate student. Teams stayed in the bench area between the end of regualr time and overtime. I was also interested to note as I looked back that the time between regular periods increased from 10 minutes to 15 minutes between the two publications.
When I was a student from 81-85, it was a 10 minute OT at 5 x 5.
As in 61-66.
The most memorable overtime I recall was at the Boston Arena Christmas Tournament in 1966. I was back in Ithaca and listened to it on WHCU. The game ended in a 3-3 tie after the second overtime. The following week, Yale beat us 4-3 in overtime at Lynah. The only two blemishes in our 27-1-1 NCAA Championship season.
.
Quote from: scoop85When I was a student from 81-85, it was a 10 minute OT at 5 x 5.
I will always remember the time on the Bright scoreboard when Shippel scored in overtime (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1985/box19850216.pdf) on 2/16/85:
5:55
Anyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel. Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk. Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.
Quote from: adamwAnyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel. Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk. Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.
And with that bearlover is now forever to be referred to as clownlover
Quote from: adamwAnyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel. Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk. Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.
Yawn. Really weak take completely devoid of substance. Obviously I think Schafer is an amazing coach and I say that all the time. That doesn't make him infallible, as you seem to believe. Moreover, changing two coaches in the offseason including the head assistant is obviously going to require an adjustment. You mentioned 30 years of Schafer. How about 12 years of Syer (gone). He coached the PK, which has been awful this year. How about trying to incorporate a longtime head coach from another program into some two-headed monster coaching structure which nobody ever tries? The decisionmaking has been atrocious this year, and that's on the coaches. The details were way more precise last season. Why do YOU think that is?
The obvious answer is just small sample size. Also even though we only lost Seger he was a massive part of the offense. I completely agree that the special teams have been bad so far but I'm hopeful it is just a combination of those two factors and will improve over the course of the season.
Quote from: chimpfoodThe obvious answer is just small sample size. Also even though we only lost Seger he was a massive part of the offense. I completely agree that the special teams have been bad so far but I'm hopeful it is just a combination of those two factors and will improve over the course of the season.
I'm sympathetic to sample size arguments but from watching the games this season, the team has not looked good to my eye. We won two coin-flips against injury-depleted NoDak by scoring what I would consider flukey goals and things have gone downhill from there. We've made a lot of mistakes which haven't ended up in the back of our net, particularly against Harvard—we were lucky to come out with a tie. I mean, everybody's standards were really high and this team hasn't even come close to meeting them so far. Not just results-wise but also how they've played.
Quote from: BearLover... We won two coin-flips against injury-depleted NoDak by scoring what I would consider flukey goals ...
flukey? we scored 7 goals in two games plus a pair of empty netters. they had injuries but as you know, so do we. we started the season beating a good team and have gotten
more injured since, not less. i think the depletion of our offense goes a long farther to explaining why the special teams look weak - that's going to be our best players after all - than coaching does. breathe, man. breathe. you may be right but time will tell. you've put down your marker but you don't get extra points by relentlessly eeyoring it up in mid-november.
Quote from: ugarteQuote from: BearLover... We won two coin-flips against injury-depleted NoDak by scoring what I would consider flukey goals ...
flukey? we scored 7 goals in two games plus a pair of empty netters. they had injuries but as you know, so do we. we started the season beating a good team and have gotten more injured since, not less. i think the depletion of our offense goes a long farther to explaining why the special teams look weak - that's going to be our best players after all - than coaching does. breathe, man. breathe. you may be right but time will tell. you've put down your marker but you don't get extra points by relentlessly eeyoring it up in mid-november.
Yes, they were flukey IMO. Check the highlights, the Cornell goals almost all came off of soft goaltending, blown assignments, or weird bounces. Cornell did some good things in the NoDak games too, particularly on defense, but they were fortunate to sweep.
Not sure what you mean by depletion of the offense but the top PP unit hasn't had any injuries all year.
Lastly, I think/hope Cornell will turn this around. They just aren't playing well right now. I'm not claiming they're a bad team or predicting they'll miss the NCAAs. I don't know what will happen, I just know they haven't looked good so far.
Quote from: BearLoverYes, they were flukey IMO.
They were definitely soft goals. Those two goalies were the weakest ones Cornell has faced this year.
The main difference vs NDak is that games were played more wide open. More space, more scoring chances.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwAnyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel. Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk. Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.
Yawn. Really weak take completely devoid of substance. Obviously I think Schafer is an amazing coach and I say that all the time. That doesn't make him infallible, as you seem to believe. Moreover, changing two coaches in the offseason including the head assistant is obviously going to require an adjustment. You mentioned 30 years of Schafer. How about 12 years of Syer (gone). He coached the PK, which has been awful this year. How about trying to incorporate a longtime head coach from another program into some two-headed monster coaching structure which nobody ever tries? The decisionmaking has been atrocious this year, and that's on the coaches. The details were way more precise last season. Why do YOU think that is?
Yawn ... Schafer's history of strong PKs long predates Ben Syer. You're nothing more than a dude who thinks they know more than they do, and are more confident in these opinions than they have any right to be. This is quite common in America these days, so hey.
Quote from: adamwYawn ... Schafer's history of strong PKs long predates Ben Syer. You're nothing more than a dude who thinks they know more than they do, and are more confident in these opinions than they have any right to be. This is quite common in America these days, so hey.
Dunning-Kruger effect? BTW, David Dunning is a retired Cornell psychology professor.
.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwAnyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel. Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk. Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.
Yawn. Really weak take completely devoid of substance. Obviously I think Schafer is an amazing coach and I say that all the time. That doesn't make him infallible, as you seem to believe. Moreover, changing two coaches in the offseason including the head assistant is obviously going to require an adjustment. You mentioned 30 years of Schafer. How about 12 years of Syer (gone). He coached the PK, which has been awful this year. How about trying to incorporate a longtime head coach from another program into some two-headed monster coaching structure which nobody ever tries? The decisionmaking has been atrocious this year, and that's on the coaches. The details were way more precise last season. Why do YOU think that is?
Yawn ... Schafer's history of strong PKs long predates Ben Syer. You're nothing more than a dude who thinks they know more than they do, and are more confident in these opinions than they have any right to be. This is quite common in America these days, so hey.
Once again, I ask: why are special teams so bad? Why has Cornell been so sloppy with the puck in their own end/the neutral zone? You offer no explanation! The only thing you have to offer is an empty defense of the coaches.
Here are some things I said in this very thread: "I'm no expert ... my guess is ... this suggests to me." Does that sound like someone who thinks they know more than they do?
BTW love the implication that I'm a Trump voter (lol) or am otherwise contributing to the sorry state of our country
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: chimpfoodThe obvious answer is just small sample size. Also even though we only lost Seger he was a massive part of the offense. I completely agree that the special teams have been bad so far but I'm hopeful it is just a combination of those two factors and will improve over the course of the season.
I'm sympathetic to sample size arguments but from watching the games this season, the team has not looked good to my eye. We won two coin-flips against injury-depleted NoDak by scoring what I would consider flukey goals and things have gone downhill from there. We've made a lot of mistakes which haven't ended up in the back of our net, particularly against Harvard—we were lucky to come out with a tie. I mean, everybody's standards were really high and this team hasn't even come close to meeting them so far. Not just results-wise but also how they've played.
Speaking of small sample sizes, I took a look at the shooting stats and by the numbers Cornell got outplayed by Harvard, played NoDak pretty evenly overall apart from one truly atrocious period, and significantly outplayed everybody else on the schedule. A split vs NoDak, a loss vs Harvard, and wins all round would be a fair approximation of the run of play they've had this season. 4-2-0 feels better to me than 3-1-2, but they're basically the same record for all practical purposes. Looking at the season advanced stats Cornell has been the equivalent of a bubble team for NCAA selection. Disappointing, given the expectations, but maybe not so terrible considering the injuries.
From watching the games I agree the team doesn't look great - certainly not like a national title contender - but I also wouldn't say that they've been under-performing expectations throughout. I saw the last two periods of the second NoDak games and it was like Cornell switched out its entire roster during the second intermission, because the third period team carried the play while the second period team looked lost, exhausted, and outmatched. In the 5 or so periods I watched them play against Dartmouth and Yale there were extended periods of dominance that made winning feel like an inevitability broken up by about 10 minutes per game of total ineptitude.
To my eyes the main problem is this mind-boggling level of inconsistency, and the penalty kill is bad because that's where it's most obvious. That might be a result of all the injuries and attendant lineup shuffling, it might be the coaching changes, it might be on-ice leadership, it might be some combination of those things. I don't know. I just hope they figure it out. The good news is given the injuries and the way they played at the end of last season I think the smart money is on them figuring it out, assuming everyone gets healthy. Time will tell, I guess.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: scoop85When I was a student from 81-85, it was a 10 minute OT at 5 x 5.
I will always remember the time on the Bright scoreboard when Shippel scored in overtime (http://www.tbrw.info/seasons/1985/box19850216.pdf) on 2/16/85:
5:55
My most memorable overtime game was the women's 2013 NCAA quarterfinal game at Lynah against BU. https://cornellbigred.com/news/2012/3/10/WICE_0310121319.aspx
We were in town for my father's birthday. With the score 7-7 after three periods, we figured that someone would score quickly, that it would be unsatisfyingly quirky, and we could go to dinner. But no. As the clock wound down in the third overtime, Lauriane Rougeau took the puck from the defensive zone, cleanly got past two defenders, and scored with 10 seconds left. Beautiful. And we just made it in time for dinner. My wife and I even showed up in the featured celebration photo right above BU's #23.
I will absolutely regret jumping in on this thread...
Quote from: BearLoverHere are some things I said in this very thread: "I'm no expert ... my guess is ... this suggests to me." Does that sound like someone who thinks they know more than they do?
BTW love the implication that I'm a Trump voter (lol) or am otherwise contributing to the sorry state of our country
Here are some other things you have also said in this thread:
Quote from: BearloverI can't tell how much of it is missing the players who are hurt and how much is the resulting line shuffling, but there's a shocking lack of cohesion on offense...
I think it's an injury and coaching problem more than anything.
That plus heinous special teams tells me it's a strategic issue more than anything.
Considering the two problems I keep harping on are injuries and coaching, well...
The decisionmaking has been atrocious this year, and that's on the coaches.
I can understand where Adam and several other posters are coming from given the above posts. Being short 7 players including critical components like Fegaras & Psenicka would be my explanation for early season issues. The careless tunovers are a player execution issue that likely has nothing to do with coach instruction. With the injury shortened bench they have zero options to sit someone as a punishment/encouragement to make better decisions on the ice.
With regards to supposed implications of your political leanings, I dont see it.
Your outrage to something not actually stated is exhibit 1A why discourse in this country is broken from my perspective (that is my opinion and not an attempt to interpret Adam's thoughts)
If there is a serious coaching issue I would call out, it would be scheduling Quinnipiac at MSG this year. Surely there must have been someone else with a sizeable NYC alumni population that would want to be involved?? Otherwise I look forward to the team getting healthy and rolling stable lines for a few weekends.
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it." Mark Twain
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience". Mark Twain
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwAnyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel. Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk. Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.
Yawn. Really weak take completely devoid of substance. Obviously I think Schafer is an amazing coach and I say that all the time. That doesn't make him infallible, as you seem to believe. Moreover, changing two coaches in the offseason including the head assistant is obviously going to require an adjustment. You mentioned 30 years of Schafer. How about 12 years of Syer (gone). He coached the PK, which has been awful this year. How about trying to incorporate a longtime head coach from another program into some two-headed monster coaching structure which nobody ever tries? The decisionmaking has been atrocious this year, and that's on the coaches. The details were way more precise last season. Why do YOU think that is?
Yawn ... Schafer's history of strong PKs long predates Ben Syer. You're nothing more than a dude who thinks they know more than they do, and are more confident in these opinions than they have any right to be. This is quite common in America these days, so hey.
Once again, I ask: why are special teams so bad? Why has Cornell been so sloppy with the puck in their own end/the neutral zone? You offer no explanation! The only thing you have to offer is an empty defense of the coaches.
Here are some things I said in this very thread: "I'm no expert ... my guess is ... this suggests to me." Does that sound like someone who thinks they know more than they do?
BTW love the implication that I'm a Trump voter (lol) or am otherwise contributing to the sorry state of our country
No one - let alone yourself - can give a certain answer as to why - over 6 games - special teams haven't been good this year, so far. It's foolish to suggest anyone could possibly give a credible, foolproof explanation for such a thing. You love to call out people for not giving more substantive retorts, when really what it means is, other people are willing to accept that ... sh** happens.
That said -- it's VASTLY more likely that it's just: players are still getting up to speed, they've had a bad day, they're getting the rust off, they need to learn how to click with each other better, or it's just bad luck, etc..., etc..., etc... -- than coaching. A great coach doesn't forget how to coach overnight after 30 years. But the physical activities that go into playing, and the changes in lineups and so forth, are much more susceptible to fluctuations in outcomes.
BTW - there was no implication of being a Trump voter. Never mentioned that sh**head. Neither "side" has the market cornered on delusion.
Quote from: Cornell95I will absolutely regret jumping in on this thread...
Quote from: BearLoverHere are some things I said in this very thread: "I'm no expert ... my guess is ... this suggests to me." Does that sound like someone who thinks they know more than they do?
BTW love the implication that I'm a Trump voter (lol) or am otherwise contributing to the sorry state of our country
Here are some other things you have also said in this thread:
Quote from: BearloverI can't tell how much of it is missing the players who are hurt and how much is the resulting line shuffling, but there's a shocking lack of cohesion on offense...
I think it's an injury and coaching problem more than anything.
That plus heinous special teams tells me it's a strategic issue more than anything.
Considering the two problems I keep harping on are injuries and coaching, well...
The decisionmaking has been atrocious this year, and that's on the coaches.
I can understand where Adam and several other posters are coming from given the above posts. Being short 7 players including critical components like Fegaras & Psenicka would be my explanation for early season issues. The careless tunovers are a player execution issue that likely has nothing to do with coach instruction. With the injury shortened bench they have zero options to sit someone as a punishment/encouragement to make better decisions on the ice.
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it." Mark Twain
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience". Mark Twain
Appreciate being called a stupid person and a fool. Thank you!
Strange for you to suggest coaches have no control over player decisionmaking and execution. "Careless turnovers have nothing to do with coaching instruction"? Who's the fool here?
Also, when discussing injuries, let's be clear: for the six games so far, there haven't been seven players out with injury. Outside of Devlin, Wallace, and Fegaras, everyone was healthy for NoDak. We have since lost Psenicka for four games and Mack for two. Meanwhile, NoDak couldn't even field a full lineup against us in the second game, and Dartmouth is missing their best player (Haymes). Harvard is missing one of their best players (Gaffney). I'm sure our opponents were missing other players too, these are just the ones I'm aware of. Which is to say, Cornell is not the only team dealing with injuries. Moreover, this team is deep enough that it should still put out a far more talented lineup than Yale, Brown, and Dartmouth even when 3-5 players are out.
The top PP unit has experienced no injuries. The PK unit has experienced a couple in the last week or two, but most of the breakdowns were defensemen who would typically play PK (even without other players being out with injury) failing to tie up/box out forwards in front of the net. Given that our biggest failing (special teams) is not directly related to injuries, other teams are also experiencing significant injuries, and despite our injuries we should still be way more talented than opponents we've struggled against, I definitely don't think the bad start can be pinned solely, or even mostly, on injuries.
Am I the only person who thinks the special teams haven't looked that bad?
There's a lot of room for improvement on the PP (move without the puck, people!) but at least we aren't sticking to the "only the bumper position can shoot and all we care about is getting him the puck" strategy of the last few years.
And the PK has looked okay, even good, to my eyes.
The results have been mixed on the PK and bad on the PP, but it's been few enough games that a couple bounces here or there are the difference between bad and good.
As far as I'm concerned, we're fine. Get healthy and stop making stupid d-zone turnovers.
Quote from: BearLoverOutside of Devlin, Wallace, and Fegaras, everyone was healthy for NoDak.
I seem to recall Cornell swept NoDak, a rather surprising outcome to me in that it was Cornell's opening two games, NoDak had already played several and they are consistently one of the top programs in Division 1. I'm sorry you found this disappointing, because Cornell's goals weren't pretty enough to satisfy your demanding tastes, and Cornell didn't look completely dominant over the entire 120 minutes, as you seem to expect always from Cornell hockey. Your tiresome rants have grown really old. Some can recognize when they've dug themselves into a deep hole, and they stop digging. You clearly lack that ability.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioQuote from: BearLoverOutside of Devlin, Wallace, and Fegaras, everyone was healthy for NoDak.
I seem to recall Cornell swept NoDak, a rather surprising outcome to me in that it was Cornell's opening two games, NoDak had already played several and they are consistently one of the top programs in Division 1. I'm sorry you found this disappointing, because Cornell's goals weren't pretty enough to satisfy your demanding tastes, and Cornell didn't look completely dominant over the entire 120 minutes, as you seem to expect always from Cornell hockey. Your tiresome rants have grown really old. Some can recognize when they've dug themselves into a deep hole, and they stop digging. You clearly lack that ability.
I was thrilled Cornell swept NoDak. What are you talking about? Cornell was fortunate to sweep those games, though, and then played worse the next two weekends. As someone who complains incessantly in the football threads in games Cornell goes on to win, you should appreciate my posting style!
wait.. Cornell has a football team?
::bolt::
Quote from: Cornell95wait.. Cornell has a football team?
::bolt::
Apparently. Homecoming was a big deal this year and it started raining at the beginning of the second quarter, bad... that was fun...
Quote from: BearLoverStrange for you to suggest coaches have no control over player decisionmaking and execution. "Careless turnovers have nothing to do with coaching instruction"? Who's the fool here?
Allow me to answer that question ... Still you. Yep. For thinking that somehow after 30 years, the coach forgot how to instruct his players on decision making and execution. SMH. But keep digging.
PP and PK we really only look at the results to decide how well they played.
You can score goals on the PP without doing much of anything right if you get the right bounce. The same that you can kill a PP without doing many things right on the PK if the other team misses a pass or whiffs on an open net.
Chances matter more, and most of us don't really go back and look at the PP and PK to see mistakes. Coaches do.
Quote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverStrange for you to suggest coaches have no control over player decisionmaking and execution. "Careless turnovers have nothing to do with coaching instruction"? Who's the fool here?
Allow me to answer that question ... Still you. Yep. For thinking that somehow after 30 years, the coach forgot how to instruct his players on decision making and execution. SMH. But keep digging.
So any successful coach is infallible and nothing is ever their fault. Cornell defenseman has time and space but no idea where to go with the puck—we saw that multiple times the last few games—and none of that falls on the coach? When Schafer introduced a new forechecking system in 2014, Cornell was terrible that year, and then Schafer admitted it was a mistake at the end of the season because the players didn't know their assignments—not the coach's fault? Anybody can give many more examples of good coaches changing strategies and systems and those things not working out. Syer, whom everyone praised for being an extremely detail-oriented coach, leaves Cornell and then the PK consistently botches details. But don't worry—it's the players who are just dumb, the coaches are infallible.
Christ is there a way to mute a thread on here?
hey man could you write another 2000 words so we're clear on your thesis?
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwQuote from: BearLoverStrange for you to suggest coaches have no control over player decisionmaking and execution. "Careless turnovers have nothing to do with coaching instruction"? Who's the fool here?
Allow me to answer that question ... Still you. Yep. For thinking that somehow after 30 years, the coach forgot how to instruct his players on decision making and execution. SMH. But keep digging.
So any successful coach is infallible and nothing is ever their fault. Cornell defenseman has time and space but no idea where to go with the puck—we saw that multiple times the last few games—and none of that falls on the coach? When Schafer introduced a new forechecking system in 2014, Cornell was terrible that year, and then Schafer admitted it was a mistake at the end of the season because the players didn't know their assignments—not the coach's fault? Anybody can give many more examples of good coaches changing strategies and systems and those things not working out. Syer, whom everyone praised for being an extremely detail-oriented coach, leaves Cornell and then the PK consistently botches details. But don't worry—it's the players who are just dumb, the coaches are infallible.
he only way to know if you can get better is to try That why golfers like Rory and Tiger and Jack who were at the top consistently tried new things. Trying something and failing isnt a bad thing. You wont know until you do it. No different than bball coaches. Most would love to be able to play full court press m2m all over and stress the other teams out. But when you try it you might fail and find out you only have the players for 2-3 zone. Credit to coach for realizing his players couldnt master it and going back. That doesn't mean we wouldn't be a better team if we were good at the other system.
Quote from: ugartehey man could you write another 2000 words so we're clear on your thesis?
Ask and you shall receive. Stayed tuned for this weekend's games.
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: ugartehey man could you write another 2000 words so we're clear on your thesis?
Ask and you shall receive. Stayed tuned for this weekend's games.
Age gives us https and this is our reward?
Even without an Ignore function one can emulate it.
Quote from: DafatoneAm I the only person who thinks the special teams haven't looked that bad?
There's a lot of room for improvement on the PP (move without the puck, people!) but at least we aren't sticking to the "only the bumper position can shoot and all we care about is getting him the puck" strategy of the last few years.
And the PK has looked okay, even good, to my eyes.
The results have been mixed on the PK and bad on the PP, but it's been few enough games that a couple bounces here or there are the difference between bad and good.
As far as I'm concerned, we're fine. Get healthy and stop making stupid d-zone turnovers.
I don't think Cornell's special teams have been good in the stretches of play I've seen this year. The PP looks about the same as what I recall for much of the past, oh, 15 years or so. The main difference is this year the results have been bad instead of merely mediocre, but it's only been 6 games. I'm reasonably confident that Cornell will have another mediocre power play when all is said and done. It's pretty clear this team isn't going to have a PP like 2002/03 or 2019/20, but it probably isn't going to end up in the bottom 5 in the NCAA, either.
The PK is a real Jekyll and Hyde act. Several of the kills I've seen have involved stretches of dominant control broken up by sequences where three guys are collapsing high and scrambling back, or just standing around waiting for someone to pick up the man in the slot, or generally running around in the zone. It could be much better, or it could just be what it is, hard to say.
Quote from: BearLoverSyer, whom everyone praised for being an extremely detail-oriented coach, leaves Cornell and then the PK consistently botches details.
Not to let facts get in the way of a good argument, but this year's PK has killed 77.8% of penalties, which is about 40th in the NCAA. Last year, with Syer on the staff, the PK killed 79%, which, as someone else already pointed out someplace, was 37th in the NCAA. Worth noting, half of Cornell's games this season have come against 2 of the top 5 teams in the NCAA for PP % (Dartmouth and NoDak), and I'm reasonably sure at least one of them (NoDak) will end up in the top 10, so it's at least possible this year's team has a better PK but ran into some particularly tough competition early.
Based on the small samples of games I've been able to watch these last two seasons the kill has looked pretty similar. This year's has been better when it's good and worse when it's bad but it's all been a matter of degree, there were plenty of botched details last year, too. All of this suggests two things to me:
1. They've probably got a mediocre PK again (although I do think this year's team has more upside than last year's)
2. Ben Syer has nothing to do with it
"You're never as good as you look when you win.
You're never as bad as you look when you lose."
Grab a drink, sit back, watch another 20 games. Maybe then we'll know something that isn't merely a reaction to the last shift.
Quote from: Tom LentoQuote from: BearLoverSyer, whom everyone praised for being an extremely detail-oriented coach, leaves Cornell and then the PK consistently botches details.
Not to let facts get in the way of a good argument, but this year's PK has killed 77.8% of penalties, which is about 40th in the NCAA. Last year, with Syer on the staff, the PK killed 79%, which, as someone else already pointed out someplace, was 37th in the NCAA. Worth noting, half of Cornell's games this season have come against 2 of the top 5 teams in the NCAA for PP % (Dartmouth and NoDak), and I'm reasonably sure at least one of them (NoDak) will end up in the top 10, so it's at least possible this year's team has a better PK but ran into some particularly tough competition early.
Based on the small samples of games I've been able to watch these last two seasons the kill has looked pretty similar. This year's has been better when it's good and worse when it's bad but it's all been a matter of degree, there were plenty of botched details last year, too. All of this suggests two things to me:
1. They've probably got a mediocre PK again (although I do think this year's team has more upside than last year's)
2. Ben Syer has nothing to do with it
Last year we had up to 10 freshmen in the lineup every night. Has Cornell not historically had a good PK under Syer looking at more than just last season?
Quote from: Tom Lento2. Ben Syer has nothing to do with it
Can't we just ask him on Saturday if he did?
Quote from: VIEWfromKQuote from: Tom Lento2. Ben Syer has nothing to do with it
Can't we just ask him on Saturday if he did?
The difference between our 78% PK (kinda meh) and say 85% (outstanding) is (at this point of the season) what? 2 goals? I would chalk that up to puck luck and small sample size variance. I suspect this will revert to the mean and be about what we expect by the end of the year.
Additionally, how many chances do you get on PP matters
When you are dealing with Injuries, lines get shifted and players on the specials get over used at times
Quote from: upprdeckAdditionally, how many chances do you get on PP matters
When you are dealing with Injuries, lines get shifted and players on the specials get over used at times
I would agree
Seeing some of the players after the games they look exhausted
Some are seeing hefty on ice times
The PP seems slightly worse but it wasn't that great last year in many instances. The PK has appeared noticeably worse this year, though. Many instances of poor or blown coverage, including one I mentioned earlier in this very thread!
Quote from: Trotsky"You're never as good as you look when you win.
You're never as bad as you look when you lose."
Grab a drink, sit back, watch another 20 games. Maybe then we'll know something that isn't merely a reaction to the last shift.
Every time we lose a game we're getting relegated to DIII, every time we win it's our last of the season... can we just watch hockey and enjoy it?
I went back and watched both weekend games, and yes, mistakes were made, team is not perfect. But it might be one of the most talented group of players I've seen on the ice from this school. Some of y'all seem to just love to hate the Big Red and I don't understand it.
We gain self esteem when our sportsball team wins.
When our sportsball team loses, we feel bad.
Our sportsball team has hurt us.
They must be punished.
The good news is that I found my lucky Big Red shirt. I'll have it on tonight for the first time since the preseason. It was in the last place that I would ever think to look, hanging on the treadmill. Hopefully now I can edge back away from the cliff some.
Quote from: stereaxQuote from: Trotsky"You're never as good as you look when you win.
You're never as bad as you look when you lose."
Grab a drink, sit back, watch another 20 games. Maybe then we'll know something that isn't merely a reaction to the last shift.
Every time we lose a game we're getting relegated to DIII, every time we win it's our last of the season... can we just watch hockey and enjoy it?
Excuse me. What website do you think you're posting on? ::popcorn::
Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82Quote from: stereaxQuote from: Trotsky"You're never as good as you look when you win.
You're never as bad as you look when you lose."
Grab a drink, sit back, watch another 20 games. Maybe then we'll know something that isn't merely a reaction to the last shift.
Every time we lose a game we're getting relegated to DIII, every time we win it's our last of the season... can we just watch hockey and enjoy it?
Excuse me. What website do you think you're posting on? ::popcorn::
I'm new here!! I don't know the vibes yet, hahahaha. I thought a good team would mean it wouldn't be doomer central 24/7, but alas, perhaps I misjudged haha.
Quote from: stereaxI'm new here!! I don't know the vibes yet, hahahaha. I thought a good team would mean it wouldn't be doomer central 24/7, but alas, perhaps I misjudged haha.
I think we've learned not to get our hopes up. When we get our hopes up, the universe tends to respond in kind with the likes of unfair placement in a western regional against a highly-seeded first round opponent or global pandemics. Doom is our default state.
Quote from: WillQuote from: stereaxI'm new here!! I don't know the vibes yet, hahahaha. I thought a good team would mean it wouldn't be doomer central 24/7, but alas, perhaps I misjudged haha.
I think we've learned not to get our hopes up. When we get our hopes up, the universe tends to respond in kind with the likes of unfair placement in a western regional against a highly-seeded first round opponent or global pandemics. Doom is our default state.
I think 2020 did a number on us. Obviously Cornell Hockey was not the biggest tragedy of that spring, but to go from "we're the best in the country" to "no hockey" so quickly stung.
The worst things from 2020: Cornell Men's Hockey ranked number 1, Cornell Women's Hockey ranked number 1, Cornell men's lacrosse ranked number 2, sports are cancelled. That was all I think...
Just get it right back.
Quote from: adamwAnyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel. Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk. Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.
I am sorry to say, but our beloved head coach Mike Schafer "should not be taken seriously in this forum."
From tonight's Sun article:
"It's hard to explain," Schafer said. "We just have no connection with each other on the forecheck, we have no connection coming out on breakouts, we have no connection on the power play,
and that's my job. My job as a coach is to get them connected."https://cornellsun.com/2024/11/22/no-8-mens-hockey-bested-by-no-18-quinnipiac-3-1/
Quote from: BearLoverhttps://cornellsun.com/2024/11/22/no-8-mens-hockey-bested-by-no-18-quinnipiac-3-1/
you are a clown - and you keep proving it ... alas, I'm not going to respond to the last 3 moronic posts you made - so, keep talking to yourself.
Quote from: ClownLoverQuote from: adamwAnyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel. Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk. Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.
I am sorry to say, but our beloved head coach Mike Schafer "should not be taken seriously in this forum."
From tonight's Sun article:
"It's hard to explain," Schafer said. "We just have no connection with each other on the forecheck, we have no connection coming out on breakouts, we have no connection on the power play, and that's my job. My job as a coach is to get them connected."
https://cornellsun.com/2024/11/22/no-8-mens-hockey-bested-by-no-18-quinnipiac-3-1/
Clownlover not a lover of reading comprehension skills.
Clownlover is making the idiotic conclusion that you can measure the quality of the coaching job by the results in what is without a doubt the short run. You can't.
No differently than you can hold teams or people responsible for effort, but not results, especially in a sport with such a high effect of variance in such a low scoring sport (as Clownlover himself has pointed out in the past).
Coach actually sounds a bit mystified in that quote. I've heard him use the hard to explain phrase in the past, and he's tended to say it with an inflection that speaks to it as mystery, and not as too difficult to actually explain to people.
Coach is saying that it's his responsibility to figure out how to fix the problem. That he hasn't yet solved it says nothing about whether he's doing a good or bad job of coaching. Take your pick of HOF coaches in any sport...you'll have heard them all make similar comments periodically. Every so often you'll see even a HOF coach shaking his head and saying that his team just cant seem to improve a particular problem, and that for the moment at least, they're genuinely stumped.
Schaf and the full coaching staff are most likely doing everything they're supposed to be doing, because track records speak to that.
But that's no guarantee of immediate results. There are a many other factors involved and if this stuff was really so easy to diagnose and fix them we could all sit back and watch with amusement as clownlover helmed the bench in a national title.run.
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: ClownLoverQuote from: adamwAnyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel. Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk. Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.
I am sorry to say, but our beloved head coach Mike Schafer "should not be taken seriously in this forum."
From tonight's Sun article:
"It's hard to explain," Schafer said. "We just have no connection with each other on the forecheck, we have no connection coming out on breakouts, we have no connection on the power play, and that's my job. My job as a coach is to get them connected."
https://cornellsun.com/2024/11/22/no-8-mens-hockey-bested-by-no-18-quinnipiac-3-1/
Clownlover not a lover of reading comprehension skills.
Clownlover is making the idiotic conclusion that you can measure the quality of the coaching job by the results in what is without a doubt the short run. You can't.
No differently than you can hold teams or people responsible for effort, but not results, especially in a sport with such a high effect of variance in such a low scoring sport (as Clownlover himself has pointed out in the past).
Coach actually sounds a bit mystified in that quote. I've heard him use the hard to explain phrase in the past, and he's tended to say it with an inflection that speaks to it as mystery, and not as too difficult to actually explain to people.
Coach is saying that it's his responsibility to figure out how to fix the problem. That he hasn't yet solved it says nothing about whether he's doing a good or bad job of coaching. Take your pick of HOF coaches in any sport...you'll have heard them all make similar comments periodically. Every so often you'll see even a HOF coach shaking his head and saying that his team just cant seem to improve a particular problem, and that for the moment at least, they're genuinely stumped.
Schaf and the full coaching staff are most likely doing everything they're supposed to be doing, because track records speak to that.
But that's no guarantee of immediate results. There are a many other factors involved and if this stuff was really so easy to diagnose and fix them we could all sit back and watch with amusement as clownlover helmed the bench in a national title.run.
So I love clowns...? Is that supposed to be insulting...?
The obvious reading of the quote is that Schafer is taking the blame for his players being out of sync. A player can control how he himself performs on the ice, but a coach controls how the players work together as a cohesive unit. It is clear from watching the games the Cornell has been totally out of sync. Many of this forum have commented this exact thing.
If Schafer says it's his responsibility to fix a problem, then how was the existence did that problem not his responsibility in the first place?
Nowhere did I claim the coaches are bad or that these problems are unfixable. I said the bad start is on the coaches (and also due to injury).
Sample size doesn't matter as much when I'm judging the team based on how they're playing rather than whether that is translating into goals and wins. That's why I was pessimistic after the first four games even though Cornell was 3-0-1.
More generally, you continue to debase yourself by attacking me personally in all of your posts.
more than anything you need to take postgame coachspeak less seriously
Quote from: adamwAnyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel. Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk. Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.
marty—since you asked, here ya go. Not "moron" or "stupid," but actually quite a bit more rude than that!
Quote from: BearLoverQuote from: adamwAnyone who says issues are "coaching" - should not be taken seriously in this forum, no matter whether slivers of good points are made elsewhere in his drivel. Attributing things to "coaching" is just clown talk. Same guy who says "the same players last year were good, so it must not be them" - then ignores a 30-year track record of coaching - equals ... clown.
marty—since you asked, here ya go. Not "moron" or "stupid," but actually quite a bit more rude than that!
Stand by every word. Especially given that one of your other many pieces of performance art is to sheepishly downplay what you actually said, and cherry pick actual things others said.
Just kiss already
Quote from: chimpfoodJust kiss already
Under the clock tower at midnight <3