ELynah Forum

Quote from: Jeff Hopkins '82

Quote from: Larry72by Topher Scott

Some of it still hurts, but read it anyway!

The Greatest Game I Ever Played In

Ari '07 and I were there.

I was too.  FWIW, it was the second best game I've ever seen.

Lemme guess on the best. May 4th/5th, 2000 Game 4 in Pittsburgh? Cause nothing can beat that for me.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: billhoward

Quote from: flytacgJake MacDonald's Highlight reel OT GW sootout goal.

Or as a commmenter on the the video's thread said, "Most disrespectful shootout goal of 2016." It was pretty devious.

I don't see why it's "disrespectful". I guess if he'd put it between his legs before shooting everyone would have said "What a great move.". Devious it was, but isn't that the point in round 10?

That's not a bad term in this context. Basically just saying you have to be super confident to the point of disrespecting the talent your opponent to even try that. But it is a complement to his boldness.

Quote from: scoop85

Quote from: Kyle Rose

Quote from: BearLoverPenn State has one draft pick on team, a 7th rounder.

Sounds like Yale from a few years back: only 1 draft pick, but good coaching and an effective system.

Also the Union team -- Ghostisphere was the only NHL draft pick on their roster

Yeah but having a future should-have-been Calder winner on you team (also should have won the Hobey) is more than enough to make up for a lack of draft picks.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: css228And before you say a coach is more than just getting results at an ivy league school, he's been known to bully players out of majors they want to take because it doesn't conform with playing college hockey. My qualms with him go way beyond what results he gets on the ice.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Out of respect to the source of this info, I'm not going to out them if that's why you're asking for. They were close with hockey players. They worked in athletics. And they don't make shit up.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: css228he's been known to bully players out of majors they want to take because it doesn't conform with playing college hockey

Careful, for your sake but mostly for Age's.  I'm honestly not sure whether a college hockey coach counts as a "public figure."

Click one more link on that second page you cite, and you'll see why Age is actually not at nearly as much risk as css228 would be.

https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230

He's a highly prominent employee of state funded institution. He's absolutely a public figure.

Quote from: RichH

Quote from: css228A lot of people here don't think much of Schafer as a coach.

That's a little bit relative considering there's fewer than 20 regular participants here. The vocal "fire Schafer" pitchfork mob numbers about 3-4, which probably equals the "Schafer Forever" club. The majority seems to be in the "the past was great, but we're getting itchy for results again" philosophy.  Personally, I thought he might have wanted to try his hand in the pros and if so, he had a great chance to hand the program over to Casey.  

If you really think J. Andrew would want to go through an interview process where he has to ask candidates about Corsi QoC and Zone Start Percentage, there's a suspension bridge I'm selling.

I seriously doubt anyone in the pros would ever have hired Schafer, at least without going through the minors first. Dave Hakstol was the first college coach hired directly to the NHL since either Mike Keenan or Bob Johnson. In other words, a coach has to have way more success at a much higher level of college hockey to draw the eyes of an NHL GM, and Schafer was never gonna take the pay cut of being a minor league coach.And I don't buy that Andy would even know what those things are.  And before you say a coach is more than just getting results at an ivy league school, he's been known to bully players out of majors they want to take because it doesn't conform with playing college hockey. My qualms with him go way beyond what results he gets on the ice.

Quote from: TimVWhat on earth is "modern" soccer?  Looks like the same ol' game to me.  22 guys mucking around the midfield until one guy in each game manages to put the ball into a goal the size of a boxcar.  Unless 2 guys do it - then it's a racehorse scorefest.::bolt::

I mean that i want a coach who's going to bring us into the era that Jurgen promised us where we take the game to opponents. Bruce Arena is not that coach. Bruce Arena puts 10 guys in a 4-4-2 and tries to outlast the other team. Other teams in the world are beginning to match our athleticism so we need to get better technically.

Quote from: ugarte

Quote from: Trotsky

Quote from: LaJollaRedLately I've been listening to the "Hockey Goes to College" weekly podcast. Good stuff. The coverage is very Boston-centric, and pretty critical of the ECAC, but entertaining and informative, nonetheless.

How is it critical?  is it the old "EZAC" trope?

Respect for the teams that have earned it, less for the others. I know from chatting with him on Twitter that @twolinepass doesn't think much of Schafer as a coach.

A lot of people here don't think much of Schafer as a coach.

Quote from: Jim Hyla

Quote from: HookingCoach Schafer has again created a team with exceptional defensive skills. The problem with this strategy is it assumes the opposing team will control the puck more than half the time.

??

I don't know where you get the assumption that good defense means you can't also have the puck. Have you watched the team this year? They are much more aggressive on offense. Considering that he stated before last weekend that every healthy player was playing, I think they have done quite well.

But of course I'm the optimist and not everyone will feel the same.

Well, we don't have a lot of the puck, as I've pointed out on numerous occasions. But you are right that being good on defense doesn't mean you don't have the puck. See the LA Kings of this entire decade. They have so much of the puck because their neutral zone defense is so good opponents cannot get in their zone. This is why they have been either the best or the 2nd best NHL team of this decade.

Quote from: billhowardBruce Arena '73 returns as coach of the US Men's Soccer team. Arena was an All-America at Cornell in both soccer and lacrosse. http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/2016/11/22/94284448/

Let us hope for the sake of U.S. soccer that this is a thing to do through 2018, and then he will be put aside for someone more in tune with the modern game.

Quote from: Beeeej

Quote from: TrotskyGuy Gadowsky does not suck as a coach.

That's an impressive record, until you look at the opponents. Notre Dame's the only surprise, as far as I'm concerned. Even Michigan isn't blue-chip this year. Most of Penn State's schedule so far is comprised of sub-#50 teams in the Pairwise.

Not that we've beaten any great teams either, but I also don't see anybody especially praising Mike.

Anyway, I suspect Penn State will have a serious regression to the mean in January and February.

I wouldn't bet on it. They're one of, if not the best, play driving teams in the country. And they've basically been impervious to score effects. Good teams beat up on bad teams, and PSU certainly has done that. Now I'm not saying they'll remain 13-1-1 pace, but they're going to compete for the Big 10 title.

Quote from: BearLover

Quote from: css228

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: css228

Quote from: DafatoneI'm not sure if Gillam's incredible play as of late is just a good thing, or if it's hiding the fact that maybe we're not playing as well as I think.

And I'm usually one of the optimists here.

Team PDO is 102.1. Definitely a bit elevated. The process needs to get better if we're going to survive the inevitable regression toward 100.

102.1 isn't terribly lucky though. I believe around 95% of teams will be within 2.25 (above or below) of 100. Another reason for optimism is the affect that injuries could be having. Inserting Kubiak and Buckles back into the lineup could help offset some of the regression that might occur

No, you're right its not super lucky, but I'm just concerned since our puck possession numbers aren't good, and likely won't get better as we play better teams.

51% CF Close, 48% overall during 5-on-5.  I assume this suggests we're an average team over the course of a small sample size.  As for who we've played, Hardvard, Yale, Q, and Dartmouth all rank highly.  So it's not like our competition has been light.  Still, we'll probably need to get at least slightly lucky to make the NCAAs.

Stats: http://www.collegehockeynews.com/stats/#adv

Yeah unfortunately it's hard to get a breakdown of game by game. I'd disregard the close number right now since the shot attempt numbers are just so incredibly small (To illustrate that point, the results from last nights game knocked us down from 51% to 50% close, even the even strength number fell to 47% from 47.8%). Check back in on the close stats in February when the sample size is about double what it currently is. The biggest problem with using these numbers as I've said before is that an NCAA season just really isn't long enough to know true talent until around the end of the year.

But I'm just saying the number I'm looking at atm gives me cause for concern, especially because our numbers seem to be buoyed mostly by two demolitions of Colgate (31-17 close, but only 39-37 at evens. Likely score effects) and Princeton (21-13 close, 46-22 at evens). Both of those teams are around 45% which is just terrible. Add in that our game against Brown was close (18-11 close, but 27-29 at evens) and we've gotten obliterated in possession by Miami (34-50 evens, 24-31 close), QPac (25-40 evens, 14-31 close), Yale (admittedly a possible score effects candidate, since it was 23-58 at evens, but 10-8 in our favor close), and Dartmouth (34-44 evens, 33-41 close). We have played some pretty good possession teams pretty well (Harvard pretty much dead even, New Hampshire 32-41 at evens) but I wanted to point out that we've made a habit of getting points in situations where we haven't really deserved them. We can't rely on that if we want this start to last.

I'd also like to point out that while we out-attempted Merrick 45-32, we fell behind early 3-0  in that game, and only 12 total shot attempts were taken in close situations in that game, so you'd expect us to be getting those kinds of shot attempt advantages. It's times like these I wish someone tracked score adjusted corsi for college.  

Point of all this being. I have severe reservations given our demonstrated play driving abilities in our ability to compete against a team like Union, I wouldn't expect us to get more points out of Yale. At best I'm thinking we're a little over .500 in the second half. I'm not sure that is enough to put us in the NCAAs.

Quote from: LGR14

Quote from: css228

Quote from: DafatoneI'm not sure if Gillam's incredible play as of late is just a good thing, or if it's hiding the fact that maybe we're not playing as well as I think.

And I'm usually one of the optimists here.

Team PDO is 102.1. Definitely a bit elevated. The process needs to get better if we're going to survive the inevitable regression toward 100.

102.1 isn't terribly lucky though. I believe around 95% of teams will be within 2.25 (above or below) of 100. Another reason for optimism is the affect that injuries could be having. Inserting Kubiak and Buckles back into the lineup could help offset some of the regression that might occur

No, you're right its not super lucky, but I'm just concerned since our puck possession numbers aren't good, and likely won't get better as we play better teams.

Quote from: DafatoneI'm not sure if Gillam's incredible play as of late is just a good thing, or if it's hiding the fact that maybe we're not playing as well as I think.

And I'm usually one of the optimists here.

Team PDO is 102.1. Definitely a bit elevated. The process needs to get better if we're going to survive the inevitable regression toward 100.

Quote from: ursusminorI probably posted this earlier, but here is another review on a similar website of Lynah Rink,

That review puts the rink on East Shore Drive, which is news to me.