Season Post-Mortem

[mnagowski]

While fully realizing that there is a game against 'Gate tomorrow afternoon, it's probably time to start taking stock of the 2007-8 season for Cornell hockey. I'm certain that others here can and will certainly contribute more insightful and perceptive comments, but I might as well add my two cents.

Top three strengths of the season

1) Ben Scrivens. Scrivens was a pleasant surprise for me this year, and I think he kept us in more games than we may immediately realize. He is obviously still a work in progress, and when he falters, as in tonight's semi-finals against Harvard or the BU game, we know it. But despite his somewhat unorthodox playing scheme, you can't argue with his numbers or with the vast majority of his performances this season.

2) The last five games of the season. What may be most encouraging for next season is the character and resolve that the team showed through the Dartmouth and Union match-ups, and in all three periods in the semi-finals against Harvard. This is a team that often struggled to play 60 minutes of hockey throughout the season, and really needed more senior (or junior) leadership from the likes of Kennedy, Barlow, Seminoff, and Sawada. But I think they finally found their pace in the post-season, and the two Union games were pure character wins. I don't think it's possible to go far in the Ivy League or ECAC without showing true spirit and character, and hopefully the team will continue to progress in this regard next year.

3) The return of more physical play. After last year's (failed?) experiment with Milo and Romano, I think it's safe to say that a fast-skating, finesse -minded team will never work under the Schafer system. The return to defensive-minded, grind-it-out, tried and true Cornell-style hockey was a welcome relief to this Cornell fan, and I only hope to see the team become more physical and shrewd next year.

Top three opportunities for next season

1) The continued development of Nash and Greening. With any luck, R. Nash and Greening and their respective NHL organizations will decide that another year on East Hill is in their best long-term interest. The two offered a lot to the team this season, but there is obviously still a lot of room for development. Their line had a fair number of defensive lapses throughout the season, and even their offensive fire power was not as consistent as most of us would like it to be. This will be a team under Greening's leadership next year, and hopefully he'll fill Topher's skates and then some.

2) Sharper, bigger, and more mindful defense. When our defense wasn't clicking, this team had a lot of problems. We often struggled to get it out of our zone into the neutral zone, and the passing wasn't nearly as crisp and as opportune as it needs to be. Our penalty kill came together nicely over the course of the season, but don't get me started on the number of stupid penalties taken by the likes of B. Nash or Seminoff.

3) Ben Scrivens. I'm a firm believer that no Cornell team can go far without an absolutely rock-solid goaltender behind them. What really made the teams of the earlier part of this decade was LeNeveu and McKee, and I think a great goaltender, coupled with a physical, defensive minded team is the only way an ECAC team can ever hope to stand up to some of the other college programs across the country. So let's hope that Scrivens continues to develop as a net minder.

I'm really not up to speed on the prospects for next year's recruiting class, but hopefully we will soon have even more reasons to be excited for next year. Here's to a quick return to the NCAA tournament.

[HockeyMan]

Good points by metaezra.  I'll add one point, pertaining to this game mostly but also qualifying under "Season Post-Mortem."

It's astonishing to me that Schafer would have his team come out andtake so many undisciplined penalties in the first half of the game--and with the season on the line. Just astonishing. What did he say to them all week? What did he say--or, rather, not say--in the first intermission?

Gate and PU had three penalties each this afternoon.  That's how you play playoff hockey.

Once again Harvard, a notch below in terms of overall talent, played smarter, more disciplined hockey. And they won.

They're also a team with eight seniors, and that's the silver lining for us (help me, I'm searching...).  If everybody eligible returns we should contend next season.  I'll certainly be there at Lynah come the first game, cheering away.  But I've been a Schafer skeptic during four years of watching this team, and I remain one.

[sah67]

[quote metaezra] but don't get me started on the number of stupid penalties taken by the likes of B. Nash or Seminoff.
[/quote]

I liked most of your points, but I really don't remember Seminoff taking many stupid penalties at all.  He's our best and most solid blue-liner, and I rarely remember him taking a penalty when we really needed him.  Brendon Nash yes...and he got away with a heck of a lot more than he was actually called for tonight against Harvard.  And Patrick Kennedy was a big culprit in the dumb penalty department all season, especially tonight.  Greening was also taking lots of needless penalties at the beginning of the season, but he really toned that down.

Also, I'd completely disagree that this team showed much character or resolve in tonight's semifinal.  Many of us in attendance remarked how it seemed like the team just didn't care, as if they were playing an exhibition game.  Especially late in the game,when they couldn't even hold the zone on the 6x4, or when they took dumb penalty after dumb penalty early on, there was much forehead-smacking in the various Cornell sections in Albany.

Scrivens gave them several chances to stay in this game with his stops on the many Harvard breakaways (resulting of course from many uncharacteristic defensive zone screw-ups by our d-men), but it seemed like at most points in the game, he was the only one who cared about the outcome, or even what was at stake.  I felt tonight was a very poor performance by a team who should have been clawing tooth-and-nail to stay alive in the post-season, and was especially lacking in senior and captain leadership.  I really only saw that passion a few times during the game, and the extended offensive cycle by the Greening Nash line in the 3rd was a good example of it...but I think it really didn't come out nearly as much as was needed.

Here's hoping they don't phone it in even more against 'Gate tomorrow.  

Perhaps we'll see Davenport in net, as the game is truly meaningless.

[mnagowski]

[quote sah67]I liked most of your points, but I really don't remember Seminoff taking many stupid penalties at all.[/quote]

Fair enough. Perhaps his slashing penalty late in today's game distorted my view. But to HockeyMan's point, Schafer really needs to instill some more discipline into this team. Or they need to find it within themselves.

[sah67]

[quote metaezra][quote sah67]I liked most of your points, but I really don't remember Seminoff taking many stupid penalties at all.[/quote]

Fair enough. Perhaps his slashing penalty late in today's game distorted my view. But to HockeyMan's point, Schafer really needs to instill some more discipline into this team. Or they need to find it within themselves.[/quote]

Just to be precise, the slashing penalty was on M. Kennedy, not Seminoff.  But I don't mean to nit-pick, and I do agree strongly with your second sentence.

[mnagowski]

[quote sah67][quote metaezra][quote sah67]I liked most of your points, but I really don't remember Seminoff taking many stupid penalties at all.[/quote]

Fair enough. Perhaps his slashing penalty late in today's game distorted my view. But to HockeyMan's point, Schafer really needs to instill some more discipline into this team. Or they need to find it within themselves.[/quote]

Just to be precise, the slashing penalty was on M. Kennedy, not Seminoff.  But I don't mean to nit-pick, and I do agree strongly with your second sentence.[/quote]

Then I stand humbly corrected, and failed to pick up this fact while watching the game. USCHO had erroneously listed Seminoff.

http://www.uscho.com/recaps/20072008/m/03/21/cor-hu.php

[grizzdan24]

[Scrivens] is obviously still a work in progress, and when he falters, as in tonight's semi-finals against Harvard or the BU game

I think one name that has been lost in the shuffle is Krueger.  He has shown great improvement from last year.  He has improved his on puck ability as well as his defensive abilities.  When he is on the ice he is always working hard and he hasn't had the mental lapses from last year.  Let's not forget that he, Scali and Fontas all didn't play in the BU game, arguably our worst defensive showing of the year.  Krueger has become a staple on the blue line, playing on all special teams units.  While he doesn't seem very vocal, he leads through his actions on the ice.  He is always calling for the puck in the offensive zone and wants to be on the ice when it counts.  I feel as though Schafer has really worked hard with him to improve, and it's showing.  One thing that I would like to see him improve upon is his decision making at the point.  He tends to have a shoot first mentality where I would like to see him try to make the extra pass and create a bit more.  He maybe the most improved player for the team this year yet he still has long way to go to reach his potential.

[Avash]

Hi all -- Hope you'll forgive the plug, but here's more on what's essentially the end of Cornell's season: http://www.collegehockeynews.com/news/2008/03/21_noregrets.php . Plus a photo gallery that includes a nice shot of Harvard's second goal.

[ansky629]

[quote HockeyMan]It's astonishing to me that Schafer would have his team come out andtake so many undisciplined penalties in the first half of the game--and with the season on the line. Just astonishing. What did he say to them all week? What did he say--or, rather, not say--in the first intermission?[/quote]

I get what you're saying, but I highly doubt that Schafer didn't say anything to trying to limit penalties leading up to the game and then during the 1st intermission.  This is one of those problems with all sports, too much blame on the coach for thins that aren't his fault.  Schafer could (and probably did) preach discipline and smart hockey until he was extremely, extremely red in the face (like when he's yelling at refs) but in the end, he's not on the ice.  It comes down to the athletes not to make those mistakes.  You can't tell me that everybody on this team doesn't know that it's not good to take stupid penalties.  They know it but they did it anyway.  In my view, while a little bit of blame goes to Schafer, most of it falls on the guys who were on the ice.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

I was extremely happy with the performance last night, barring the result of course.  They could have quit when Sucks scored their two quick goals, but they didn't.  They kept hustling and digging in the corners.  But to me the problem comes down to one thing:  nobody to put the puck in the net.

We ran the grind it out, cycle it along the boards thing well.  We easily outhit Sucks for most of the game (dumb penalties notwithstanding).  While we didn't outrace Sucks to the puck every time when we did the dump and chase, we certainly got there soon enough most of the time to get a stick on the puck.  But when it really came down to it, there was nobody in the slot (ala Moulson) to pass the puck to once the grinders came up with it.  And that's been a shortcoming of this team since Moulson graduated.  

We seem to be stuck in that transition between the WCHA "skate past the defenders" style and the "grind it out in the corners style" of previous years.  While the Nashes and the Greenings certainly fit the role of the former, the rest of the team doesn't.  If we're going back to the Schafer style team, we're gonna need someone to sit in the slot and take abuse (Tim Kerr of the Flyers being the prototypical player IMO).  I don't see that player on the team right now, and I don't see Schafer trying to use someone in that role yet.  

My other concern, as has been noted by others, is lack of leadership.  It was clear that Topher was up for the game, but I don't know who among the juniors is going to take that mantle on.  Maybe Scrivens will step up.

And for those of you taking solace in the fact that Sucks will be graduating a lot of seniors, remember that Princeton is as young as we are, if not younger.  It's doubtful they're going to drop much from where they are this year.

Bottom line:  We knew this wasn't going to be our year.  I'm accepting of this.  But I expect much more from them next year.

[bothman]

Cornell fans, tough loss.  I was very surprised to see so many penalties from a undisciplined Cornell team.  It is one thing to take a slashing penalty late in the game on a Harvard breakaway, but most of Cornell penalties were the result of poor decisions, not being outskated and having to make up for a lack of speed.  I've never seen a Schafer-led Cornell team play that way against Harvard.

Anyhow, I think you missed the biggest positive for Cornell and that is Riley Nash.  I thought he was the best player on the ice.  He is so quick and smart with the puck.  The issue is that so much of his play-making ability go to waste, at least they did last night.  You have to wonder how long he will be at Cornell if Schafer can't find people to play on his line that can finish and better understand the cerebral aspects of the game.

I came away very impressed with him, much more so than Scrivens who made the cardinal sin by not hugging a post and getting burned short-side.

[HockeyMan]

[quote ansky629][quote HockeyMan]It's astonishing to me that Schafer would have his team come out andtake so many undisciplined penalties in the first half of the game--and with the season on the line. Just astonishing. What did he say to them all week? What did he say--or, rather, not say--in the first intermission?[/quote]

I get what you're saying, but I highly doubt that Schafer didn't say anything to trying to limit penalties leading up to the game and then during the 1st intermission.  This is one of those problems with all sports, too much blame on the coach for thins that aren't his fault.  Schafer could (and probably did) preach discipline and smart hockey until he was extremely, extremely red in the face (like when he's yelling at refs) but in the end, he's not on the ice.  It comes down to the athletes not to make those mistakes.  You can't tell me that everybody on this team doesn't know that it's not good to take stupid penalties.  They know it but they did it anyway.  In my view, while a little bit of blame goes to Schafer, most of it falls on the guys who were on the ice.[/quote]

Fair enough.  The players ultimately have to go out there and do it, and I've played enough hockey to know that coaches can go crazy watching the troops ignore all that they've preached.  But look, it's about preparation.  It's about having the team to the little things right when it counts most. That's substantially--not wholly, but substantially--a coaching issue.

I had the ominous feeling prior to faceoff that Donato would have his team better prepared for this game (he has before, IMO, which is why they've had our number lately; it's certainly not because they're more talented).  And he did. How to explain that?

[redredux]

It's hard to understand 3 losses to Harvard in one season when the skill level on the 2 teams seems approx the same.  Seems like Donato has Schafer's number at least for now.  For the Red, the talent is there and the defense is mostly there.  To me, it seems the team is missing a top notch goalie (I like Scrivens but I don't think he's Lenny, McKee, or even Underhill) and finishers.  On the finishers, I blame Schafer to some extent.  I think he needs coaching help on O.  Why wasn't Sawada put in front a la Tim Kerr as described above?  Or someone else.  But I feel like Sawada size and skills were largely wasted.  I don't see any real offensive scheme or plan and as a result the scoring chances, while there, are generally from outside and from poor angles.  Even though I think the D is mostly good, this Red D seems to let up a lot more shots than the past grade A defenses.  It wasn't unusual for Lenny or McKee to face fewer than 20 shots in a game.  Seems like Scrivens has been facing more on average, which of course makes his job harder.  This is pure speculation but seems to me the O has been worse ever since Jamie Russell left.  The stars on the Murray, Baby, Vesce teams weren't blue chip prospects so it's possible to get back to that level.  I'd say slightly better D and better finishing on O are the key to get back there.  In terms of next year, unless Garman is a huge stud, I don't see a great reason to expect a much better finish.  That said, if Greening and R. Nash stay and step it up, they should be 2 of the top 5 players in the league.

[CUontheslopes]

I agree your third point. I was SICK of seeing "offensive-minded" little teams who couldn't score anyway. I miss the '05 team where we were so much bigger than everyone else that by the time the third came around we were absolutely dominant.  Nothing beat the line of Sawada, Hynes, Bitz, Pokoluk and O'Byrne in my opinion. THAT'S cornell hockey - big, hard-hitting and unrelenting.

I'm 100% displeased with our switch towards being smaller.  I think Schafer acted rashly in changing the team's style. It was is if he said - these teams get me to an NCAA Quarterfinal, but no farther. Now we're stuck with small teams who can't even make the NCAA's. Hopefully, we can get some more big guys and return to being the Red Army team we were in years past. I've been a huge fan for year and years, but I'll be very disappointed if we get away from what made us so good.

[scoop85]

Lots of size coming in next year, especially on D.  May not have gaudy numbers, but I think we will continue to see a return to the more physical style of play.