LP Games

[marty]

This:

When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent.

Yeah, because those type of goals are never scored by any team at any level!

The point is not that these goals never happen, only that they are unpredictable enough against skilled opponents not to be relied upon to win games. A good coach doesn't say, "Our game plan is: you, you, and you go out there, make a sick move, and score, and you, go out there and score on a breakaway. Defense, keep it to 3 GA, and we've got this in the bag." No, what a good coach does is set up and practice plays that reliably have an X% chance of resulting in a goal over a large enough number of tries.

So unpredictability = bush-league?

I understand what you are getting at with regards to predictability and don't disagree. I just do not understand the bush-league portion of your post. I am confident I have watch many similar plays (a great deke) in various high level hockey leagues that I would not call bush.

What he's saying is that spectacular goals are nice - amazing, even - but do not constitute a game plan. Building a team around superlative pure talent is not a coaching strategy or even a particularly viable recruiting plan for Cornell. Kyle is saying that offensive cohesion is a coachable skill that Schafer seems to be falling short in.

I have not watched enough to comment either way. Thus concludes today's episode of Translating Kyle in Good Faith.

Anyone else remember "Sermonette"?

[RichH]

I will confess my surprise that Joakim Ryan was not 1st team all-ecac.

I am a big fan of his, but I used to think that he could be manhandled in front of Cornell's net.  Not sure if others agree with that assessment.  I think he has improved his defensive play.  The kid is tough too, he blocked a shot with his facemask against Quinnipiac in their barn.  Shook it off on the bench and kept going.  To me he's not as good as some of our prior first-team ECAC players like Murray or Ratushny but on par with a player like Steve Wilson.

I'd compare him to Mark McRae.  Great natural talent and dedicated worker; had to learn to be a little restrained to respect his defensive duties, but has developed into the best blueliner on the team.

I was also surprised he wasn't 1st team all-ECAC.

I'll say only one thing that could be construed as negative.  He quarterbacks the pp and the pp is horrible.  I don't lay it solely at his feet (skates?), but star players do shine in those situations.  Had we an effective pp this season could have been considerably better.

What I love most about Ryan is his ability to create space. Whether its by great vision or proper anticipation, he opens up the ice on both sides when he has possession more than anybody else I can remember. While Ferlin uses his body and strength to protect the puck and maintain possession, Ryan does so by getting it to "where-they-ain't." And while he doesn't have the booming cannon that players like Murray had, he's just plain accurate with the puck. He's the most complete defensemen we've had in recent years.

[Trotsky]

Ryan does so by getting it to "where-they-ain't." And while he doesn't have the booming cannon that players like Murray had, he's just plain accurate with the puck. He's the most complete defensemen we've had in recent years.

In LP we had a great angle to see how Ryan sets up plays where he has many options -- either the slow slide to the opposite point to draw the coverage or the quickie pass down low to set up a cross-crease pass, or the sneaky screen shot to the far corner.  Union covered all of these options perfectly because Union is a helluva good team, but Ryan's decision-making and execution were terrific.  He's a good player and he can destroy a less vigilant opponent.  I really hope he comes back.

[BearLover]

This:

When was the last time Cornell scored a goal off an amazing deke

is not hockey. That's bush-league shit that a good defense can and will predictably prevent. Union was so effective not because of individual heroics like this, but rather because their team played like a team, set up plays intended to create scoring chances, and executed well.

Who said you had to build your gameplan around deking out your opponent?  Are players not supposed to try to get around a defender when they're 1-on-1? What would you recommend they do, just barrel through the guy?  I'd recommend they try a few bush-league tactics.  Yale sure scored a lot of goals en route to a national championship with these bush-league maneuvers!  I saw Crosby set up a goal off a sick deke the other night.  The ref disallowed it, due to it being bush-league.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who don't actually read. Go pick a fight with someone else.

My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.  "Bush-league" offensive moves are a significant part of offensive talent, even if they do not in themselves constitute a gameplan.  I really don't know what you're even saying.

[Trotsky]

My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.

Ferlin, Ryan, Bardreau, Lowry, Mowrey, both McCarrons, Buckles and Hilbrich are all offensively talented in various ways.  MacDonald and Weidner seemed to be developing offensively as the season waned.  Pure talent isn't the problem.

[BearLover]

My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.

Ferlin, Ryan, Bardreau, Lowry, Mowrey, both McCarrons, Buckles and Hilbrich are all offensively talented in various ways.  MacDonald and Weidner seemed to be developing offensively as the season waned.  Pure talent isn't the problem.

Fair point.  I guess I meant more that the team as a whole has little coordinated offensive talent, which is likely a problem of coaching.  Still, even when those guys are on the ice, Cornell seriously struggles to create chances.  They look sluggish, they can't open up passing lanes, etc.

[ugarte]

My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.

Ferlin, Ryan, Bardreau, Lowry, Mowrey, both McCarrons, Buckles and Hilbrich are all offensively talented in various ways.  MacDonald and Weidner seemed to be developing offensively as the season waned.  Pure talent isn't the problem.

Fair point.  I guess I meant more that the team as a whole has little coordinated offensive talent, which is likely a problem of coaching.  Still, even when those guys are on the ice, Cornell seriously struggles to create chances.  They look sluggish, they can't open up passing lanes, etc.

This is exactly Kyle's point you belligerent nut.

[BearLover]

My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.

Ferlin, Ryan, Bardreau, Lowry, Mowrey, both McCarrons, Buckles and Hilbrich are all offensively talented in various ways.  MacDonald and Weidner seemed to be developing offensively as the season waned.  Pure talent isn't the problem.

Fair point.  I guess I meant more that the team as a whole has little coordinated offensive talent, which is likely a problem of coaching.  Still, even when those guys are on the ice, Cornell seriously struggles to create chances.  They look sluggish, they can't open up passing lanes, etc.

This is exactly Kyle's point you belligerent nut.

?  

I don't care what his point was; I was responding to his absurd response to my initial post.

[Rosey]

My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.

It has more than Union, at least according to people who have skin in the game (NHL scouts). I repeat: there is simply no evidence that a lack of talent ("the recruiting gap" ) is Cornell's problem.

[Tom Lento]

My point is that Cornell is devoid of any offensive talent.

It has more than Union, at least according to people who have skin in the game (NHL scouts). I repeat: there is simply no evidence that a lack of talent ("the recruiting gap" ) is Cornell's problem.

I would go even further and say *developing* individual offensive talent is not a meaningful issue, either. I believe the perception of players regressing offensively is actually a matter of seeing guys with tons of potential develop into a system that artificially limits offensive production.

While reading your earlier post about Union's set plays in the offensive end I realized something - with the possible exception of 2003, I can't think of a Cornell team under Schafer that has consistently executed that kind of offensive zone plan. A few top lines here and there, sure, but never the top two and certainly not all four. Apart from the "pick everybody off the draw" play Cornell generally seems to rely on just wearing the other team out. This certainly fits my memory of 2002 - that team dominated on the cycle and was deadly on the power play, but IIRC they had one of the worst even strength scoring offenses in the country. Even strength wasn't about generating chances from superior positioning, it was about dominating possession in the corner and waiting for the opposition to make a mistake. When your third and fourth lines are grinding eternally in the corners and getting a handful of opportunistic chances in front that's amazing. When your top lines are doing it that means you have very little margin for error unless you have a strong power play and you hold the puck for a very long time. Cornell had both of those things in 2002, and the result was an incredible season to build up to 2003.

The 2003 team felt a lot more opportunistic out of the cycle, and that might be because they were running more of these sets to generate chances. If that was the case, I wonder to what extent this is a reflection of Coach Schafer's conservatism rather than an actual lack of ability to design or teach these things. There's a limit to how much you can teach during a hockey season, and Schafer's teams always learn defensive responsibility first. It might be that the offensive zone sets don't come until the team buys into the rest of the system, and they only work that stuff once they're consistently generating that cycle and maintaining defensively sound positioning. If you have a couple of recruiting classes that don't buy in you get a 4 year down cycle where you basically have no offense. Another possibility, of course, is that the assistants during that period were better at managing the offensive zone plan, and it really does come down to the "offensive coordinator" role in the coaching staff. I don't pretend to know, but certainly the teams I've seen on TV in recent years - even when they were putting on that cycling clinic against UNH - didn't seem to use set plays that reliably got the puck to the net.

[Scersk '97]

It might be that the offensive zone sets don't come until the team buys into the rest of the system, and they only work that stuff once they're consistently generating that cycle and maintaining defensively sound positioning.

As good a point as any to mention that we have at least two lines that I see no reason to change after this season:

Code Select Expand


Lowry    — Kubiak   — McCarron
Hilbrich — Bardreau — Ferlin


Besides the notion that we seem to be running a right-wing lock rather than a left-wing lock these days, given that the offensive talent is on the right of each line, these are essentially our first two lines next year if Ferlin sticks around, which I think he will. Kubiak needs to work on his faceoffs, but he seems a very responsible center defensively (and a future captain, IMHO). I might switch Hilbrich and Lowry to better balance the offensive capabilities of each line, but these are quibbles.  Our first two lines for next year are set. They did set up effective cycles, and they're pretty responsible defensively. Hopefully next year they can work on offense, offense, offense!

What we lose from this year, or, perhaps, what we never really had in any case, was a true checking line. This year was abysmal. The "system" I want to see come back on this team is the checking line takes the puck, delivers it to the offensive end, cycles for a bit and produces a shot on goal, and then gets the hell off the ice for the ensuing faceoff. Yeah, once in a while that shot might go in, but I don't really care too much if it does. With the talent coming in and remaining on the team, I think we'll develop a pretty good 3rd line next year; whether or not we develop a checking line depends on a few of these talented folks sacrificing and working hard on doing one most important thing—shutting down the opposition's top line so the other three lines don't have to.

PS And Nieuwy needs to visit and work the magic he did with the '96–'97 centers. Man, we need to learn how to win faceoffs.

[CowbellGuy]

So, the games are over, Union is 2014 ECAC Champs.  Congrats to the Dutchmen!

Now, I have to ask if anyone else found the title game on tv?      We came home from errands expecting to catch the game in-progress on DirecTV's Ch. 623 ( where the semi's were carried)..    All we found on 623 was a floating DirecTV logo.   And the game was on no other channel.     I wonder who is responsible for this work of wonderment (NOT broadcasting the Title game).

I have DirecTV. It was on 623-1, the standard-def version of 623. It didn't show up in the guide until Thursday night, but it was there, and still on my DVR if you don't believe me. I also recorded 623 hoping it would be there in HD, but that was just the DirecTV logo you mentioned.

[redice]

So, the games are over, Union is 2014 ECAC Champs.  Congrats to the Dutchmen!

Now, I have to ask if anyone else found the title game on tv?      We came home from errands expecting to catch the game in-progress on DirecTV's Ch. 623 ( where the semi's were carried)..    All we found on 623 was a floating DirecTV logo.   And the game was on no other channel.     I wonder who is responsible for this work of wonderment (NOT broadcasting the Title game).

I have DirecTV. It was on 623-1, the standard-def version of 623. It didn't show up in the guide until Thursday night, but it was there, and still on my DVR if you don't believe me. I also recorded 623 hoping it would be there in HD, but that was just the DirecTV logo you mentioned.

Thanks, Age....   We didn't have a 623-1 on our box.    We don't have an HD box.   And, yes, I understood what you said about it coming through as standard-def version on 623-1 on your box.   Oh well, CU wasn't in the game, so there was no need for me to rip them a new ass.   And, based on what you're saying, they wouldn't have understood.    Don't know how it could appear in Standard Def on hour HD box and NOT appear on my Standard box, at all.   It gets so tiring trying to figure out what these assholes are doing with the games we want to watch.  

Thanks for helping.