Romano update

DILLIGAF · October 03, 2007, 03:34:05 PM

While it is very early, it appears that Romano is struggling to fit in to the OHL.

http://lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=198688&x=articles&s=knights

At least Hunter has the cajones to sit him unlike Mike. He was able to break Schremp and turn him into a real hockey player. It appears he isn't going to be afraid to try it with Tony either. That my be the best thing for him in the long run...that is, a coach that will make him play unselfishly and on both sides of the redline, with and without the puck.

Josh '99 · October 03, 2007, 03:58:07 PM

[quote DILLIGAF]That my be the best thing for [Romano] in the long run...that is, a coach that will make him play unselfishly and on both sides of the redline, with and without the puck.[/quote]You mean like what Schafer wanted him to do?

Jim Hyla · October 03, 2007, 05:01:51 PM

[quote DILLIGAF]While it is very early, it appears that Romano is struggling to fit in to the OHL.

http://lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=198688&x=articles&s=knights

At least Hunter has the cajones (cojones?) to sit him unlike Mike. [/quote]Well, I again don't know how you make these statements (correct spelling or not). That's especially considering he sat a number of freshman from the NC trip. I don't know of anyone complaining about Coach not being able to give discipline. Maybe I should take my own advice and not respond?

min · October 03, 2007, 05:08:21 PM

[quote DILLIGAF]

At least Hunter has the cajones to sit him unlike Mike. [/quote]

minor quibble: it's cojones. cajones means drawers, big crates.

evilnaturedrobot · October 03, 2007, 06:03:46 PM

[quote DILLIGAF]While it is very early, it appears that Romano is struggling to fit in to the OHL.

http://lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=198688&x=articles&s=knights

At least Hunter has the cajones to sit him unlike Mike. He was able to break Schremp and turn him into a real hockey player. [/quote]

are you kidding me? Even after a year in the AHL Shremp still doesn't backcheck, what are you talking about? Shremp worked well in London because they never asked him to play defense, not because hunter 'broke' him.

DILLIGAF · October 03, 2007, 06:28:18 PM

[quote Josh '99]You mean like what Schafer wanted him to do?[/quote]

Want??? He is the head coach. He could have actually influenced him with benching him until he played the game he as the head coach "wanted." By not doing so he gave his blessing to Tony's selfish, no defense style of play.

As for not taking him and the others on the road trip, it had nothing to do with on ice play.

RichH · October 03, 2007, 07:28:16 PM

[quote DILLIGAF].that is, a coach that will make him play unselfishly and on both sides of the redline, with and without the puck.[/quote]

So wait. I thought your problem with Schafer was that he forced gifted players into a 2-way defensive style of play and therefore buried and held back pure offensive talent. Now your criticism is that he's not man enough to force selfish offensive players to become more complete 2-way players. Which is it? Or is it just blind hate?

Before, I think you held Romano to being a talent too good for Schafer. Now he plays a selfish, no-defense style?

One example of Schafer benching a player for selfish play was Pegoraro his sophomore year (I believe).

marty · October 03, 2007, 08:47:18 PM

Try this on for size.::whistle::

DILLIGAF · October 03, 2007, 10:11:15 PM

I didn't say he was ever going to be "Defensive Player of the Year", but he is a far cry better defensively than he was early in his career.

DILLIGAF · October 03, 2007, 10:24:44 PM

Rich:

I was always thought of Tony as a very skilled player with the puck on his stick. His problem, and the team suffered greatly for it, was that he wouldn't use his linemates to open up the ice for him. You have to be willing and able to play away from the puck. The majority of the game for any player is spent without the puck. You only saw Tony play when he had the puck. He would ignore the obvious pass to an open team-mate to try to stickhandle around or through the opposition. Had he had the selflessness to give up the puck to take pressure away and create openings for him, he would have been hugely successful. No coach in Tony's career has required him to play on the defensive side of the blue line or to properly utilize his linemates. Cornell should have been the place for that. Last year's team was characterized by selfish play. Tony fed right into that and by not correcting it and demanding that it stop, it was pervasive throughout the team, throughout the season. That is the coaches fault. Tony was but one glaring example of that.

We have a right to expect better from Cornell hockey that we saw last year. I am objective enought to say it was not great hockey. At times it was bad hockey. The coaches and the captains bear the responsibility for that. We as fans have a right to expect better effort, better execution and therefore, better coaching.

evilnaturedrobot · October 03, 2007, 10:58:05 PM

Dilligaf, if Tony was allowed to do whatever he wanted and exepted from playing defense, then why did he leave because he thought the team was too defensive and system oriented? When you read Tony's comments it sounds like he feels that he was being stifled by Cornell's defensive style. Clearly, if Mike wasn't yelling at him to back check and play the system then he wouldn't have felt compelled to leave.

RichH · October 03, 2007, 11:04:23 PM

DILLIGAF,

Thanks for the well written and thought-out response. This is certainly qualifies as an decent opinion. I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but it's a rational, well-stated position. I'll remember this when the bad-cop version of your personality shows up and heaps accusations of rape-advocation and back-stabbing lying onto the coaching staff for no reason.

evilnaturedrobot · October 03, 2007, 11:18:40 PM

It seems to me that Dilligaf does know his hockey and he does have some sort of inside contact to the program, he's been right enough that I have to conclude this. It just seems that he has something personal with Mike and he lets this color his views, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness.

Jim Hyla · October 04, 2007, 09:31:03 AM

[quote RichH]DILLIGAF,

Thanks for the well written and thought-out response. This is certainly qualifies as an decent opinion. I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, but it's a rational, well-stated position. I'll remember this when the bad-cop version of your personality shows up and heaps accusations of rape-advocation and back-stabbing lying onto the coaching staff for no reason.[/quote]

Quote from: evilnaturedrobotIt seems to me that Dilligaf does know his hockey and he does have some sort of inside contact to the program, he's been right enough that I have to conclude this. It just seems that he has something personal with Mike and he lets this color his views, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness.

I agree with both of you. The problem is that as has been pointed out with prior posters, he says one thing at one time to slam Schafer, and then the near opposite when it fits his malcontent position of Schafer. By doing that he loses me and most others, and I choose to disregard most of what he says.

I really wish he could see this and give us the nonpartisan view. It's the kind of thing where I'd like to sit down and have a real conversation to try and understand him and his views.

calgARI '07 · October 04, 2007, 11:39:38 AM

Schremp a real hockey player? Have you ever watched him at the pro level? Will never make the NHL as a regular. Pure garbage. I like the Hunters a lot and they have done some great things in London but Robbie Schremp is not one of them.