Reflections, this and distant past

[Jim Hyla]

We had a great team this year. It was much better than any in years, but we're not quite at the top. We were good enough to win the NCAA's, but also "good" enough to almost lose the ECAC's and regional.

We probably still lack two ingredients to win it all. First, a sniper. If we had a Moore or Higgins (say nothing of a Vanek or Sejna) we would have likely more easily won the tourneys we did, and had a good chance at it all.
Without that, and maybe with it, we need regular NCAA experience. If we had that, might we not have gotten 3 goals behind UNH?

Now for some distant reflections. In '66 we had a good/great team. We finished second in the east and didn't go to the NCAA's because of a rule violation. The next year we won it all with a great team, but only because of great defense, including Dryden, and a "lucky" goal by Walt Stanowski as he came out of the penalty box. Some people thought he was not onside. Without that, we could have easily lost, but we still would have been a great team.

The next two years, we also had great teams, but finished third and second in the NCAA's. However that experience led directly to the undefeated championship year '70. I'm sure that without that experience by the junior and senior classes we would not have been able to accomplish it. The players that year were consistently good, but there was no superstar like Dryden.

So what about now? We need consistently good recruiting classes. We can't have an off year because our chances of getting a superstar, that can carry the team, are not great. That will give us the chance of getting to the NCAA's every year, and to many Frozen Four's. With that we will learn what it takes to win, without it it will take luck.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]We probably still lack two ingredients to win it all. First, a sniper. If we had a Moore or Higgins (say nothing of a Vanek or Sejna) we would have likely more easily won the tourneys we did, and had a good chance at it all.
Without that, and maybe with it, we need regular NCAA experience. If we had that, might we not have gotten 3 goals behind UNH?[/Q]
Agree on both points. In reverse order ;-), I thought that Frozen Four experience could have played into both our game and the championship game. We seemed tentative early in our game (even though we controlled the pace early), and Minn just seemed much more comfortable in that environment than UNH.

As for the first, I had a similar but not exactly the same thought. I was thinking that it might be a decent idea to compliment Schafer's defensive minded style with an assistant coach who might be able to smooth over our offensive skill. I competely support Schafer's team system and have always liked the big, aggressive strong defensive teams, but it feels like we just need a finishing touch. The ability to finish, make that one close pass, and lift the puck just a little bit more could be a major boon to a team like ours. It seems like so many time where we miss on the momentary rebound attempt or it skips just wide... bounces over a stick or a point blank shot sails over the crossbar. Just focusing a bit on refining some of that could make a major difference.

[Tub(a)]

Does McCutcheon fit the sniper mold?

[Richard Stott]

I think that Shane Hynes might develop in to one, we'll have to see about McCutcheon., but I doubt it for next year.  Actually, it's not clear that we will ever will have a real sniper with our style of play.  It's simply not a system that benefits great individual scorers.  At Cornell even the best skaters have to spend much of their time grinding along the boards.

Schafer has suggested in the past that we have to play a defensive style because we can't get the snipers the top programs do.  So he has recruited to find guys to fit his system, good size and willingness to work hard in both ends of the ice.  If we are able to get more firepower, it may be that Schafer will open up the style of play a bit more, tho it's hard to argue with 30-5-1.

I share the doubts we will be able to compete year in, year out with the top programs.  I think a pattern of competing nationally followed by rebuilding years is more likely.  The BUs and Minnesotas just reload year after year, while this year we carried by a great senior class (and a less-remarked on 42 goals from the freshmen).

[CUlater]

Interesting thoughts posted previously.

UNH had plenty of Frozen Four experience, so if DeltaOne81 means that Minnesota had an advantage because its players have been in a national championship game before, well, that I understand, although from watching the game it seemed to me that UNH held its own and lost because (1) Minnesota had the best player on the ice (Vanek) and (2) it had a few defensive breakdowns in the third period (and then they were running around so much to try to catch up).

I also think we did more than just "control the pace" early in our game.  The ice was totally tilted to one end, up until the disallowed goal.  We had UNH back on its heels, which is quite an accomplishment since teams that make it this far are typically very close in ability.  I think it's a cop-out to imply that experience made the difference (see Kansas v. Syracuse).  Sure, experience helps, but that was a game we could have won despite our lack of experience.  I don't really look at it as any different from saying that that we should have beaten Dartmouth or Colgate earlier this season.  You can't win every game (unless you played in '69-'70), and unfortunately a bunch of things happened to cause us to lose each of those games.  Against UNH, the guys seemed focused, to me, and I didn't think they panicked, so I don't see experience really playing a role in the outcome.

As for Richard Stott's comments about reloading, it's important to note that all of the top programs go through down periods, including BU (see the mid-to-late 1980s, until the arrival of Amonte's class in fall '89) and Minnesota.  Competition for recruits is intense, both nationally and within each league, and there is something of a momentum factor involved with it.  So I won't be surprised to see a dip eventually, although I will be surprised if it happens now.  I think Cornell has an opportunity to continue its national presence for a while.  And Jim hit the nail on the head -- we can't have an off-year in recruiting, because that sort of thing interrupts the momentum and can have a lasting impact down the road (as happened in the early 90s, when thanks to the administration's decisions, a few recruits ended up elsewhere, leaving some classes short a key man or two, meaning we had to wait until Chartrand's class arrived and gained experience before the up-cycle started again)

[Chris Moberg]

I had the pleasure to watch the  most potent trio of Red snipers play in the late 70s (Kerling, Tredway, and Nethery).  These were guys that could put the puck in the net, even within the context of a defensive team.  A strong defense does not rule out a quick strike offense.  

Success begets success. I suspect Schafer will be better able to intice a sniper or two if they can continue to do well in the NCAAs.

As we have seen in players like Peter Shier and Doug Murray, a strong defender can also  fire missles from the point.  I think many have considered these players offensive threats.

[Greg Berge]

As usual, Jim's dead on.

Cornell got a ton of great press this year -- #1 in the rankings, a Hobey Hat Trick finalist, breaking the Dryden shut out record, setting the GAA record, RS champ, ECAC champ, Eastern Regional champ.  That is GREAT recruiting material, and remember that Mike was able to entice the current seniors and LeNeveu into the program without that success to draw on.  Cornell can now convincingly argue to blue chip prospects of all flavors that coming into a great program with NCAA experience can help put them higher on scouts' radar.  We can tell the kid he can get the same press as LeNeveu and the same preparation as Nieuwendyk, and tell the parents that he can get the same education as Dryden.  That's powerful stuff.

The next recruiting class seems to have been extremely successful; it may contain a hidden goal scoring gem like Paolini, or McCutcheon could turn out to be another Vesce.  What we do know is that we don't have an insanely high prospect forward in the mold of Nieuwy or Manderville.  But that may come -- the NHL *likes* scorers who can also bang and play D.  The WHL continually throws a ton of talented forwards the NHL's way who are snipers at the junior level and who will become solid citizen second and third line forwards in the NHL because they're big, smart, and tough and still have that knack for the net.  Those are the blue chippers we will attract with our system -- not Kariyas, but LeClairs.



Post Edited (04-14-03 11:47)

[Jeff Hopkins \'82]

Interesting choice of LeClair - an ECAC scorer, not Hockey East (but I'm sure the choice was intentional, Greg).

I offer another suggestion of a Flyer as a type that might fit into Schafer's system:  Tim Kerr.  A big guy that can stand in the slot and not be moved by the opposition.  When the cycle frees the puck it goes to him and bang!  In the back of the net.

One of those guys would be really nice.

JH