Are we that good? (Cornell after 10 games)

[RichH]

[quote CUontheslopes] We're certainly getting the looks and the chances and score our fair share of trash collection goals, but I can't recall the last time I saw a Cornell player actually beat a goalie. All our goals come on screens, deflections and rebounds and there's nothing wrong with that, [/quote]

Well, I think the goal we scored last night was a skill goal.  Unlike '04, when CU stubbornly refused to deviate from the Murray-Paolini style of umbrella PP strategy that was nearly unstoppable (because of the personnel that worked perfectly with it), the PP units of this year are willing to try and adapt to different styles.  Last night's goal was a wonderful tic-tac-toe passing play that still required some skill from Greening to flip it up and tuck it inside the post.

R. Nash cleanly beat the UND goalie on his breakaway in the 3rd period last Friday, and M. Kennedy's SHG goal the next night was also quite skillful in beating the goalie.  

My metric that I usually try to measure a team early in a season: Their conditioning.  Specifically, do they get stronger or weaker relative to the opponent as a game goes on?  The strongest CU teams get the lead early and muscle their way to a dominant shut-down 3rd.  2003 saw a team where basically, if opponents didn't have a lead by the end of the 1st, they were finished.  Offensive power in the 2nd, and a completely devastating  locked-down 3rd.  Conditioning, conditioning, conditioning to be stronger and last longer than everyone else.  This is why I'm not sky-high on this team yet.  Already we've seen several "hang on" games: Harvard, Dartmouth, St. Lawrence, UND #2.  The 1st UND game is a prime example.  CU got to 4-3 in the 3rd and got completely owned the rest of the game.  The QU 0-0 game, we really controlled the 3rd.  The chemistry and defensive discipline is there (great point on the blocking shots), but the one thing needed to make this a DOMINANT team, the "final-kick" strength (to use a sprinting term), isn't quite there compared to the great CU teams.

A 1-2 game stint in the NCAAs is a very reachable goal for this team.  And they're fun to watch.  I'm very happy right now.

[Rosey]

I simply don't understand why they aren't putting the puck into the net more often.  They look way, way more inventive offensively than (frankly) I have ever seen them, even when the Abbotts were zooming around the offensive zone.  I think it's just a matter of the lines gelling.  I am cautiously optimistic.

As for D, I'm more comfortable with them *most of the time* than I have been for the past few years.  They keep the puck along the boards, at least against crappy competition, with a few exceptions that generally result in the crowd bowing to Scrivens.  Clearly they need to work on their coverage, but at least I see much less pwnage of the D than in recent years---for an example of what I mean, witness Clarkson looking like they were on a penalty kill for 2-3 minutes at a time last night, even when the teams were at even strength.

[sah67]

[quote Kyle Rose]  They look way, way more inventive offensively than (frankly) I have ever seen them, even when the Abbotts were zooming around the offensive zone.  I think it's just a matter of the lines gelling.  [/quote]

I agree with that statement for the most part, but I still don't know what happened to the powerplay against SLU after Greening's goal, especially on the 5-minute major.  Greening's goal was the kind of perfect, tic-tac-toe, chalkboard PPG that we always seem to have scored against us.  But after that, it seemed like the strategy reverted back to the miserable man-advantage of two years ago where we would set up Brendon Nash on the point for a big slapper every freakin' time, much like we used to attempt with Bitz and McCutcheon.

After the 4th or 5th consecutive blast from Nash on the same 5-minute powerplay, I think the SLU penalty killers had wised up to our offensive inventiveness a bit.

[Trotsky]

[quote Kyle Rose]I simply don't understand why they aren't putting the puck into the net more often.  They look way, way more inventive offensively than (frankly) I have ever seen them, even when the Abbotts were zooming around the offensive zone.  I think it's just a matter of the lines gelling.  I am cautiously optimistic.[/quote]Me too.  They have two bona fide scoring lines.  The Kennedy line just seems snakebit, I don't get it either.  The Nash line, one of these nights, is going to have one of those crazy Ryan Vesce 7-point games -- with the kind of game they play, they are bound to strike the right combination of hustle, an opposing goalie with an off-night, some power play chances, and some luck.

But more importantly, for the first time since 2005 the team looks cool, collected, and confident.  That's what you need to play over your head in the post-season.  Maybe it's a matter of good leadership to go with the skills -- this team seems to have that.

And they are very fun to watch. :-)

[scoop85]

Best overall balance we've had in the past few years, and I think Greening is really the catalyst for this team, both in terms of on-ice performance and in his leadership.