Union Postgame

[marty]

Scrivens earned his keep at RIP.  The defensive letdowns were serious and he was up to it.

On Saturday the skate was on the other foot. Mzazek was amazing when the Red tried to rally at the end and the letdowns by Cornell cost us two goals.

[marty]

[quote krose][quote Tom Lento]Blah[/quote]

To sum up, I would be satisfied if Schafer would do one of two things: (1) hire an assistant who can coach offense or (2) go back to the old, grinding, defense-minded system and recruit the trees-on-skates that were effective at implementing it.

Kyle[/quote]

I agree about hiring an offensive minded assistant as there is a lack of creative (and/or effective) offensive play.  That being said, there is also a great need for the team to start playing together as a team.  In 05 and 06 that happened as the season wore on.  Will it happen this year?

As an RIP season and seasoned ticket holder I am amazed that they seem to be doing a swoon at this point.  Reminds me of the Fridgen coached teams and Seth Appert is not in any way like the Fridge.  WTF is it with them?  I don't know, but one thing for sure is that you can't count your wins before the puck is dropped.  Anyone pick Onion to make it a four point weekend?  Anyone besides the Onion team pick Onion to finish higher than 10th in the league?

My point is that much of this opining is just that and whether the Red do this or that is an unanswerable question in my mind.  I just hope to enjoy the year and so far this year it has been a bit of a yawner.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote redice]
I'll go one step further.....   Schafer should assemble his lines and leave them alone (except as necessitated by injury).   I have always felt that constantly juggling lines (by Schafer or any other hockey coach) is a signal to the world that you don't know how to put together effective lines.  

That's a bad signal to be sending out; especially to your own players!!

Just imagine how much more effective this team could be if lines were left "unjuggled"  and players could actually build some chemistry with their linemates (i.e. know where their linemates are without having to look).[/quote]

So, you don't like the reshuffling he did with Sawada? Should you put together the best lines you see in the Red-White game and leave them forever? I don't know of a team sport where you never change the player combos. I think he tries to find the best combos and if they are not working, then dam it, change it. You may not agree with the changes, but that's why they pay him to be the coach.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote krose]... while recruiting power forwards like Riley Nash and Greening who are then left to fend for themselves, and smaller, faster guys like Topher and Scali who are much less effective at the old Schafer system simply by virtue of size and weight.  Thus, their talent is wasted.

I'm specifically not talking about seasons prior to 2004.  I was thrilled with Schafer for the 1996-2003 seasons.  He was a god among men.  And so forth. :-)

Kyle[/quote]

So, how did Vesce fit into your discussion. He spanned your years, was small, and I think (please tell me if I'm wrong) did very well in the Schafer system.


I'll say all over again, to me, these last 13 years have been second only to the glory late 60's/ early 70's and I certainly don't expect to see them again. We have grown used to excellent years and great NCAA games, not last year and probably not this year, but I still think we have a good system. I'll also say again, what ECAC school wouldn't trade their years with us?

[Tom Lento]

[quote krose][quote Tom Lento]Blah[/quote]
My specific criticism is that Schafer can't configure an offense

. . .

To sum up, I would be satisfied if Schafer would do one of two things: (1) hire an assistant who can coach offense or (2) go back to the old, grinding, defense-minded system and recruit the trees-on-skates that were effective at implementing it.
[/quote]

You're basically saying that the team wasted talent last year and so far this year, because I don't think you can make that claim for 2005 or 2006 either. Last year I can see where you're coming from, but I think it's a bit unfair to complain about wasting talent given that it was the first year with the smaller lineup. Besides, that team's big problem was on defense, not offense - they were *awful* in their own end.

As for the systems in place, Schafer's offense has been based on winning battles in the corners, cycling endlessly, and throwing the puck in front of or at the net. It's not the prettiest offensive strategy but it can be highly effective.

Power forwards are *exactly* what you want for that offense. Guys like Shane Hynes, Matt Moulson, and Colin Greening are the prototypical Cornell forward. Guys like Topher Scott and Ryan Vesce are great as well - they add another dimension with their quickness, passing, and puckhandling and they're tough enough to win the battles in the corners. The smaller, fast, open ice skill guys like Milo and Romano (and possibly David Hovey - remember him?) are not well-suited to that offensive system, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure why they came here.

I don't know what the deal is at the moment. It may be that they got a couple of classes with the wrong types of recruits. It may be that they're in the middle of a drastic shift in strategy and it will either be ultimately unsuccessful or it's going through some serious growing pains. It may be that they thought they were getting guys who would buy in to a cycling system but haven't done so.

Personally, I'd like to see an assistant who can get the team to improve its passing top to bottom, and who can design a different power play. Honestly, I think if they improve their decision-making and passing the breakout and offensive zone play will be fine. The set breakout play that they ran in 2002 and 2003 was superb, and had enough options that it was difficult to contain regardless of the forechecking strategy. Now, it seems like the set breakout is always an adventure.

[redice]

[quote Jim Hyla][quote redice]
I'll go one step further.....   Schafer should assemble his lines and leave them alone (except as necessitated by injury).   I have always felt that constantly juggling lines (by Schafer or any other hockey coach) is a signal to the world that you don't know how to put together effective lines.  

That's a bad signal to be sending out; especially to your own players!!

Just imagine how much more effective this team could be if lines were left "unjuggled"  and players could actually build some chemistry with their linemates (i.e. know where their linemates are without having to look).[/quote]

So, you don't like the reshuffling he did with Sawada? Should you put together the best lines you see in the Red-White game and leave them forever? I don't know of a team sport where you never change the player combos. I think he tries to find the best combos and if they are not working, then dam it, change it. You may not agree with the changes, but that's why they pay him to be the coach.[/quote]

Jim, I'm not trying to say that some of the line changes were not improvements.    And no, I don't think we need to take the extreme and carry the Red-White game lines through to the end of the year.  (Frankly, I find that a bit sarcastic on your part).  

On the other hand, at some point, early in the season, he should have some idea of the strengths/weaknesses of each player.   At that point, he should put the lines together and let them gel.   Let me be clear, it's the constant line changes that I object to.

[Rosey]

[quote Tom Lento]As for the systems in place, Schafer's offense has been based on winning battles in the corners, cycling endlessly, and throwing the puck in front of or at the net. It's not the prettiest offensive strategy but it can be highly effective.[/quote]
Except there are more guys (Nash this year, Romano last year stick out) trying to puck handle into the zone, but without the systematic support (passing, positioning, i.e. all coaching) that would make such a strategy successful.  Wouldn't you agree that it would be best to have multiple tools in the toolbox, if you will?

Power forwards are *exactly* what you want for that offense. Guys like Shane Hynes, Matt Moulson, and Colin Greening are the prototypical Cornell forward. Guys like Topher Scott and Ryan Vesce are great as well - they add another dimension with their quickness, passing, and puckhandling and they're tough enough to win the battles in the corners.

I didn't see Topher winning too many of those battles this weekend.  Honestly, I think some of our guys have actually regressed in effectiveness over their time here, and Topher is one of them.  Why?  Who knows.

The smaller, fast, open ice skill guys like Milo and Romano (and possibly David Hovey - remember him?) are not well-suited to that offensive system, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure why they came here.

Ok, so you agree that some recent recruiting doesn't fit the system? :-)

I don't know what the deal is at the moment. It may be that they got a couple of classes with the wrong types of recruits. It may be that they're in the middle of a drastic shift in strategy and it will either be ultimately unsuccessful or it's going through some serious growing pains. It may be that they thought they were getting guys who would buy in to a cycling system but haven't done so.

All of the above are coaching issues.  (Recruiting is part of coaching.)

Personally, I'd like to see an assistant who can get the team to improve its passing top to bottom, and who can design a different power play. Honestly, I think if they improve their decision-making and passing the breakout and offensive zone play will be fine. The set breakout play that they ran in 2002 and 2003 was superb, and had enough options that it was difficult to contain regardless of the forechecking strategy. Now, it seems like the set breakout is always an adventure.

I don't disagree at all.  I said the same thing, but without whitewashing it.  They need better offensive coaching.  It's that simple.

Kyle

[Jim Hyla]

[quote redice][quote Jim Hyla][quote redice]
I'll go one step further.....   Schafer should assemble his lines and leave them alone (except as necessitated by injury).   I have always felt that constantly juggling lines (by Schafer or any other hockey coach) is a signal to the world that you don't know how to put together effective lines.[/quote]

So, you don't like the reshuffling he did with Sawada? Should you put together the best lines you see in the Red-White game and leave them forever? I don't know of a team sport where you never change the player combos. I think he tries to find the best combos and if they are not working, then dam it, change it. You may not agree with the changes, but that's why they pay him to be the coach.[/quote]

Jim, I'm not trying to say that some of the line changes were not improvements.    And no, I don't think we need to take the extreme and carry the Red-White game line through to the end of the year.  (Frankly, I find that a bit sarcastic on your part).  

On the other hand, at some point, early in the season, he should have some idea of the strengths/weaknesses of each player.   At that point, he should put the lines together and let them gel.   Let me be clear, it's the constant line changes that I object to.[/quote]

Well, I'm glad you recognize sarcasm:-D cause that's how it was intended. Look, you said he should assemble his lines and leave them alone. No mention of some changes being OK, or that this should only be after some determined early part of the season. Frankly, I consider anything done before Jan. to be the early part of the season, so we are just now getting past it. And if Coach Schafer feels he can rearrange things to get more output, go for it. I'd feel a lot worse for a coach who never said he made a mistake, nor could he get any better than how he started.

Most hockey teams like reasonably stable lines, but they all are rather constantly tweaking them to get them better. Look at teams that start double shifting a star once the season gets to crunch time.

I'd like to think that if we on top of the hockey world, then we might not be arguing these points, but I don't know about that. I do know that we are not likely to get that far, but we can have some fun trying. All you have to do is to look how easy it would have been for the team to stumble before they got to that UHN game. We could easily not have been in Buffalo, and that was with the best team we've had in years.

[Trotsky]

So, to recap, 98% of this thread has been fans criticizing other fans for the  way they root.

Moral: If you're going to split, always lose the Friday game.

[Mike_87]

Now, back to some useful discussion of the Union game...

Union is always a hard place to play.  It is a tiny rink with no corners, and Cornell seemed to be struggling.  They could not get set up to work their offense there most of the time. Part of  that, I am convinced is that Cornell runs a lot of their offense from the corners, and Union's rink really seems to eliminate a lot of corner cycling.  In any case, Union did a good job clogging up the ice.


Union played a really good tactical game.  They moved the puck quickly out of their zone, and did a good job limiting what Cornell could do on the small ice.  


Having watched more than one Cornell loss at Union against clearly inferior talent, I would suggest not making any generalizations about the team based on their play there.

[Tom Lento]

[quote krose]
I don't disagree at all.  I said the same thing, but without whitewashing it.  They need better offensive coaching.  It's that simple.
[/quote]

I whitewashed nothing. After all, as you decided to go to great lengths to show, my entire previous post was about areas where the coaching staff might need some improvement (and that was intentional, since we were discussing coaching). I just disagree that it's that simple.

I think there were a couple of high-profile recruits who didn't pan out, and maybe a couple more who didn't develop as expected. Some of that is unreasonable expectations by the fans, some of it is on the coaching staff, and some of it is bad luck, but all of it happens to every coach at some point. I think last year's team had terrible trouble in the defensive zone - much more so than the offensive zone - so a better offensive coach wouldn't have helped as much as you think.

I also think a lot of the complaining about the offense has to do with an unreasonable expectation of Cornell changing its identity overnight. Schafer recruited two or three smaller, quicker forwards and suddenly the Big Red was going to be the ECAC's answer to the late-90s NoDak teams. This will never be a wide-open offensive minded team under Schafer. If that's what you expect, get used to disappointment.


As for Union - Cornell always struggles there. Even when they win, it's not pretty. With Union being halfway decent and Cornell in a bit of a down year, I'm not at all surprised by this result.

[redice]

[quote Jim Hyla][quote redice][quote Jim Hyla][quote redice]
I'll go one step further.....   Schafer should assemble his lines and leave them alone (except as necessitated by injury).   I have always felt that constantly juggling lines (by Schafer or any other hockey coach) is a signal to the world that you don't know how to put together effective lines.[/quote]

So, you don't like the reshuffling he did with Sawada? Should you put together the best lines you see in the Red-White game and leave them forever? I don't know of a team sport where you never change the player combos. I think he tries to find the best combos and if they are not working, then dam it, change it. You may not agree with the changes, but that's why they pay him to be the coach.[/quote]

Jim, I'm not trying to say that some of the line changes were not improvements.    And no, I don't think we need to take the extreme and carry the Red-White game line through to the end of the year.  (Frankly, I find that a bit sarcastic on your part).  

On the other hand, at some point, early in the season, he should have some idea of the strengths/weaknesses of each player.   At that point, he should put the lines together and let them gel.   Let me be clear, it's the constant line changes that I object to.[/quote]

Well, I'm glad you recognize sarcasm:-D cause that's how it was intended. Look, you said he should assemble his lines and leave them alone. No mention of some changes being OK, or that this should only be after some determined early part of the season. Frankly, I consider anything done before Jan. to be the early part of the season, so we are just now getting past it. And if Coach Schafer feels he can rearrange things to get more output, go for it. I'd feel a lot worse for a coach who never said he made a mistake, nor could he get any better than how he started.

Most hockey teams like reasonably stable lines, but they all are rather constantly tweaking them to get them better. Look at teams that start double shifting a star once the season gets to crunch time.

I'd like to think that if we on top of the hockey world, then we might not be arguing these points, but I don't know about that. I do know that we are not likely to get that far, but we can have some fun trying. All you have to do is to look how easy it would have been for the team to stumble before they got to that UHN game. We could easily not have been in Buffalo, and that was with the best team we've had in years.[/quote]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.    I'm okay with that.  I'm not going continue with a discussion that looks like it could easily venture into the realm of being a pi$$ing contest.

[marty]

[quote Mike_87]Now, back to some useful discussion of the Union game...

Union is always a hard place to play.  It is a tiny rink with no corners, and Cornell seemed to be struggling. [/quote]

From USCHO:

Lynah Rink
Dimensions: 200x85
Built: 1957
Capacity: 4,267


Achilles Center
Dimensions: 200x85
Capacity: 2,225

I get that small feeling in Schenectady, too.  This topic has come up in years past.  I have yet to go over there with a tape measure.

Your observation that the corners are different is interesting.  Is that why the rink feels small from the stands?

[mnagowski]

[quote marty]
From USCHO:

Achilles Center
Dimensions: 200x85
Capacity: 2,225[/quote]

For what it is worth, Wikipedia lists 201x86 ft. And the corner in the picture does seem a little bit shallow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_Rink

[Josh '99]

[quote metaezra][quote marty]
From USCHO:

Achilles Center
Dimensions: 200x85
Capacity: 2,225[/quote]

For what it is worth, Wikipedia lists 201x86 ft. And the corner in the picture does seem a little bit shallow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_Rink[/quote]Are we saying that the corners are very rounded - a large curve radius?