ELynah Forum

Well...it appears that Cam Abbott was awarded CHL's " Rookie of the Year".
Seems he scored a tons of goals. Scored only 4 goals with Cornell his senior year.
His team the Bossier-Shreveport Mudbugs are one of the top teams in the CHL.  Gotta say something about the Cornell's coaches stifling offensive strategy doesn't it.
I hear Joe N. is taking a coach's course. Could it be?.....nah.

How's that for use of capital letters, before you edit it. You forum Nazi.

That's what I like about a free society (free speech, or it is freedom of the press, or is it an uncensored Internet) anyway, being able to give one's views even tough it is contrary to the masses. However, I think the way in which those that disagree with such views and proceed to suppress, censor those processes is no less than fascism. Then I guess this isn't a free or open discussion of Cornell's men's hockey forum...is it now?

It could be said forums have rules, idiotic ones like, proper use of capitals, of which we will just apply to those posts we really don't like.

It's ironic how Schafer has banned his players from reading this forum. Is that because he feels the people running it don't censor it enough? Yet he leaks information to its column. I'm sure the players all read the posts anyway. Careful, guys your computer may be tapped.

Like I said before, people will believe what they want do, despite what the evidence indicates.  But then time will tell, won't it. We'll see how Cornell fairs in the pre-season rankings. $ 20.00 and a case of 12, says Cornell won't crack the top 20.

The Cornell Cadillac has one wheel in the ditch. There are serious problems with Cornell's men's hockey program, not just the team's performance this season. There are good reasons why players that can, leave the Schafer regime early.

I saw Nancy Grace's expose on Duke University. She'd have a heyday with Cornell. I tell you she would be bouncing up and down in her chair and pounding her fists on the table with all the alleged: underage drinking, assault, property damage, abuse, academic fraud (remember those suspensions, now you know) and did I mentioned alleged rape. That's just the hockey team. That should give you something to chat about.

As you may have noticed I don't respond nor read the replies on these posts. I put my view on there like it or not, to let you decide to evoke discussion, it you so desire. It may entertain you, may make you really mad, but try and see some truth to it.  However, I am responding to the title modification of my previous posts. Something that should be more of a concern, perhaps than you people realize. Maybe there should be a disclaimer on this forum, just after "Discussions about the Cornell's men's hockey team" that your post maybe censored or modified if the moderator doesn't like it.

You can bicker and surmise all you want this spring and summer on this forum, but Cornell hockey will remain worse long before it gets better. CU fans are going to have to a bitter pill to swallow. Perhaps CU fans are getting what they long deserve for there rhetoric. I guess it may be true, what goes around, comes around. CU fans might want to show more respect to the visiting rivals next season, not because of good sportsmanship, but because those visiting teams will most likely be better coached teams than Cornell.

We'll have this discussion again; I'm sure next season when CU fans are wondering what the hell is going on, and I'll be there to tell them.

Enjoy the off-season, ......and savor Cornell's descent into mediocrity.

P.S. Certainly don't have a problem with constructive rebuttals. But for you select few name calling dumbass whining noobs who offer no possible solutions, here are a few choice capitals letters for you........STFU.

Hmmm.... now where did I put Nancy's hotline number....

Schafer gambled with the freshman forwards this season and lost. His nepotistic country club recruiting agenda and guarantees have cost Cornell dearly. Funny how everyone was on the bandwagon about the freshman forwards scoring potential at the start of the season; they were the salvation of the team. Funny how people can believe so much hype and BS they can't see what's really there.

Greening: How does a freshman go to the top line, and stay there with meager production. At the beginning of the season all I heard was size, size and more size. Where are all the points? Moulson had more goals and points in his freshman year and Moulson sure didn't play on the first line or get as much if any power play time. Most of Greening's goals were all scored in a few games.  With all the chances that he was given, playing with 2 seniors, he should have been close to Moulsen's numbers last year. The problem is, Greening floats, yes he plays physical, but it seems the only time he does score is when he is parked in front of the net. His skating is weak; size alone doesn't win you games. Is he a distant relative of Schafer's? Because I can't figure how he got on the first line.

Milo: Again, how does a freshman go to the second line and stay there with only 3 goals and 1 assist for the whole season. But then he was one goal short of Cam Abbott's 4-goal production quota from last season, so I guess that makes him a keeper on the second line. At the start of the season, I heard he put up great numbers in the USHL. Well, they weren't that great, Milo was ranked somewhere in the mid 30's in scoring and if wasn't for the fact that he was traded to Lincoln mid season he wouldn't have even had those numbers. He may possess some skill, but he is small and underpowered. Short strike zones don't count in this sport.  He was virtually invisible most of season. Again, could he also be a relative of Schafer's.

Gallagher: Again from the smurf collection is Gallagher. He is probably the most skilled and definitely has the most hockey sense of the freshman forwards. However, he lacks the production and like Milo suffers from lack of size. Of the entire freshman, I had high hopes for Gallagher; I thought he would have done much better, point wise. How many Gopher Scotts do we really need?

Romano: Is Romano really that good or is it because everyone else on the team looks so bad. He looks good at times with his speed and moves. But what about all the times when he fails, and things that he doesn't do. One-dimensional player. He reminds me that peewee player, you know the one, the kid that carries the puck in all 3 zones while the parents in the stands yell; "pass the puck" before he loses it. The peewee team loses 5-3, " But coach I got 3 goals". Romano is the consummate score 1 goal for me and lose two goals for the team type of player. He's slight, looks like he should still be playing AAA, makes mistakes on his risk taking, but he does manage to outscore most of his team mates. 1 out 3 ain't good. If he really were pro material would he be playing on a mediocre team in a mediocre conference.  Time for a reality check.  He will disappear in minor pro, guaranteed, despite any pro reports. NJ used up a low draft pick on a long shot. They won't cash in.

Scali: The only freshman forward that didn't make it to the lineup on regular basis. Some thought his defensive abilities would get him on a checking line or on the PK. Perhaps next season; there'll probably be a few more openings, maybe quite a few.  Scali reminds me of that energizer bunny. Skates around all over the ice with lots of energy and is real noticeable. But doesn't seem to accomplish anything.

Fontas could have centered the checking line this season and probably done a very good job. This would have allowed Kennedy to center the 2nd line and would have most likely made more of an offensive impact than Gallagher. Barlow and Kindret, I'm sure could have been more productive on left wing on the 1st and 2nd line. In fact a combo of Barlow, Kindret and Kennedy would have made a formidable line. They were certainly awesome the rare times they played together last season. Connors could have been highly productive as right-winger this season if Schafer hadn't ruined him and forced him to quit. This kid could blast up and down the wing and take the big shot.

Think this year's freshmen will improve under the Schafer system. Highly doubt it. CU fans will be in store for more of the same old, same old next season.

But wait, there'll be a new crop of freshman next year, let's turf these guys and put all our beleaguer hopes onto the new freshman. In Schafer we trust.  LGR! LOL!

It appears Cornell is no longer the powerhouse team it once was and will mostly likely not be for some time. For the simplistic reason it can no longer score more goals than it allows. Schafer was fortunate and had a pretty good recipe for winning the last few years, but now some of those important ingredients from last season are missing. Namely; Moulson, McKee, O'Byrne among a few others.

In the past CU was able to grind out wins by capitalizing on a very highly effective power play. They were able to achieve those 2 or 3 PP goals that gave them the lead. In addition, they were able to keep scoring against to a minimum with good goal tending. McKee was a good goaltender, but not great. What made him great was a good core of defensemen on the blue line.

Even last season CU had trouble scoring at even strength. Schaffer has never trained the lines well enough to "manufacture" a goal, but has instead relied heavily on a man advantage system to ensure goals. But those ingredients are no longer available.  A quick fix was initiated to bring in what seemed to be at the time decent scoring freshman to fill some top spots, but to no avail. The freshman experiment has failed, and failed bad. The power play has not been effective because it has not been adapted for the group of players that make up the units now, as well, there should have been some major player modifications.  Schaffer should have groomed his sophomores better last season. Instead he demoralized good forwards like Barlow, Connors, Fontas and Kindret, guys that had paid their dues and could have made a strong contribution in offense this season.

The problem of poor game results will ultimately compound the team's ability to dominate the division in the future with recruiting. Just what kind of recruits will CU get in the future with poor rankings, probably not quality that it has obtained in the recent past

CU will most likely wallow in 4th or 5th place in the seasons to come. CU may get lucky and go deep in the playoffs, but unlikely. The other universities have raised the bar in their hockey programs and CU will no longer enjoy its dominance that it once held in the ECAC for some time. I am sure at the end of the season, we'll see comments like; "this was rebuilding year", "our freshman were having a transitional year" "Our veteran players didn't provide the leadership" etc. etc., we might even see one of the assistant coaches depart. However, it won't change anything. That magical recipe is gone and until Schaffer starts becoming successful in creating lines that can manufacture goals, or he leaves, which is unlikely with his long term contract, will CU be able to once again dominate the ECAC. The team didn't need some internal soul searching, it needed coaches who could orchestrate an effective scoring offense, practice it everyday and refine it. You can't will players to play better through articles, and comments in and out of the dressing room, it comes with hard and focused training and building chemistry.  It's funny how once a team starts scoring goals and winning, that then do all these issues with leadership, motivation and other stuff melt away.

The bottom line is that the  "Schaffer System" has failed because it has not adapted well to the challenges that CU is facing both internally and externally. You can get lucky sometimes and be dealt a good hand for a year or two, but to be a consistent winner you have to work at what you have every year. How long will it be until the CU crowd shouts, "Its all your fault" and starts pointing to the coaches on the bench? But...of course that could never happen.

I recently read Schafer's comments in the Ithaca Journal regarding the St. Lawrence game. I have to say I've have always believed that it is   " A poor general that blames his troops." Perhaps the players did play poorly, or St. Lawrence was just better coached.  However that doesn't mean that the Cornell's coaches shouldn't share in the blame.

Whose job is it to make the team aware going into a game? Whose trains this power play everyday and decides who's in the lineup. Perhaps, Schafer and his assistants should stop isolating themselves from the disappointing performance of their team and start acknowledging some accountability themselves.

And what was the real reason that 4 freshman where scratched?

Yes, I agree. I would like to see more Kindret. Schafer had him start the second line with Kennedy & Carefoot. Kindret made a great tape to tape pass, while getting hit, to Carefoot for a partial break away. Kindret also, set up McCutcheon for a big shot. Kindret also played on a line with Bitz & Swada for a while and also with Scott & Romano. Kindret makes things happen, I think that's why Schafer had him all over, to energize the team. Kindret may not always put up the stats, but he makes contributions that can't alway be measured in stats. Gotta keep him in the lineup.

Actually, I think the USCHO has been generous in ranking Cornell 14th. I think after November Cornell will lucky to crack the top 20.