Cornell 2 at Yale 4

[lynah80]

Cornell took too many penalties and gave Yale some 5 on 3 opportunities.   They picked things up later in the game, but it just wasn't enough.  

It looks like they will be facing either Harvard or Clarkson in the quarterfinals.

[Chris 02]

[quote lynah80]

It looks like they will be facing either Harvard or Clarkson in the quarterfinals.[/quote]

There's a lot of hockey left to make that determination.

[Trotsky]

If the scores hold (*):

32 Yal
28 Prn*
27 Cor
24 Drt*
24 SLU
22 Hvd*
20 Clk
19 Qpc*
18 Uni
15 Col
13 RPI
10 Brn

[lynah80]

The Cornell PP has become somewhat dependent on accurate outside shooting.  They don't seem to pass to big guys like Greening or M. Kennedy inside the slot very often.  I'm sure that having Greening in the slot is a big plus for the first unit, even if he doesn't touch the puck.  Opponents have to content with his screens, potential deflections and rebound shots.  But it seems there are some opponents where a more creative and sophisticated PP is needed.  The second Harvard game is a good example of that.

[abmarks]

[quote lynah80]The Cornell PP has become somewhat dependent on accurate outside shooting.  They don't seem to pass to big guys like Greening or M. Kennedy inside the slot very often.  I'm sure that having Greening in the slot is a big plus for the first unit, even if he doesn't touch the puck.  Opponents have to content with his screens, potential deflections and rebound shots.  But it seems there are some opponents where a more creative and sophisticated PP is needed.  The second Harvard game is a good example of that.[/quote]

Since when weren't we dependent on outside shooting?
We need a more creative/sophosticated PP against EVERY opponent.

I for one am getting sick of watching other teams play a rapid-passing high skill power-play that creeps closer and closer to the net until someone is wide open no deeper than the circle to jam it home.  By contrast, our PP is the good old plant a couple trees in front and look for a slapshot from the blue-line)

2d Harvard game was a perfect example--I mean the HARVARD PP was.  Great puck movement, find the open guy (who is open because noone is standing around) and ram it home.


I've come to the conclusion over the years (and it feels reinforced this year after watching several teasm outskate us) that We will NEVER compete for a national title with the system and players we are getting.  At this rate we won't even win the league with any regularity since speed is gonna win out every time vs. size - unless you play a *perfect * defensive game that night and luksak an offensive oportunity.  It's really sitting on a razor's edge of advantage to play that way, especially as the rest of the league is going back towards small/quicktalented offensively.

We don't have the team speed or puckhandling/shooting/offensive skills to compete...and I can't remember the last time we did as a team.  And with the NHL going to so much more of an open game these days, I've got to think that our system is even *less* desirable to play in for anyone that wants to go pro and recruiting will get even tougher.

NOthing against the guys we got, but if coach doesn't change up the system a bit and adapt.. and then in turn be able to get some different type players, we won't see that next national title.

End rant....

[MSE09]

[quote abmarks]...We will NEVER compete for a national title with the system and players we are getting.  At this rate we won't even win the league with any regularity since speed is gonna win out every time vs. size...the rest of the league is going back towards small/quicktalented offensively...team speed or puckhandling/shooting/offensive skills to compete...if coach doesn't change up the system a bit and adapt.. and then in turn be able to get some different type players, we won't see that next national title.[/quote]

Hmmm, Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast offense-minded players?  Such a team would have unquestionable success! ::whistle::

[Trotsky]

[quote MSE09]Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast, offense-minded, non-headcase players?  Such a team would have unquestionable success![/quote]

FYP

[Swampy]

[quote Trotsky][quote MSE09]Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast, offense-minded, non-headcase players?  Such a team would have unquestionable success![/quote]

FYP[/quote]

FYP?::wtf::

[abmarks]

[quote MSE09][quote abmarks]...We will NEVER compete for a national title with the system and players we are getting.  At this rate we won't even win the league with any regularity since speed is gonna win out every time vs. size...the rest of the league is going back towards small/quicktalented offensively...team speed or puckhandling/shooting/offensive skills to compete...if coach doesn't change up the system a bit and adapt.. and then in turn be able to get some different type players, we won't see that next national title.[/quote]

Hmmm, Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast offense-minded players?  Such a team would have unquestionable success! ::whistle::[/quote]

If by success we mean a national title or realistic shot at playing for one EVERY year,current things are hardly any measure of success.  

Besides, seems to bea fine system for the Michigans and BC's, BUs of the world.

.......

To answer the FYP comment someone else made about *non-headcase* offensive players..1)FYP= fixed your post.  2) I'm assuming poster was referring to Romano, who is one of the very very few I could remember that had the kind of speed or skills that I'm talkning about.  UNfortunately, either he was a head case, should not have  come to CU in the first place knowing what he knew about the sytstem, or 3... maybe he would have stuck around if there was anyone to pair up with him that was his playmaking equal.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote abmarks][quote MSE09][quote abmarks]...We will NEVER compete for a national title with the system and players we are getting.  At this rate we won't even win the league with any regularity since speed is gonna win out every time vs. size...the rest of the league is going back towards small/quicktalented offensively...team speed or puckhandling/shooting/offensive skills to compete...if coach doesn't change up the system a bit and adapt.. and then in turn be able to get some different type players, we won't see that next national title.[/quote]

Hmmm, Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast offense-minded players?  Such a team would have unquestionable success! ::whistle::[/quote]

If by success we mean a national title or realistic shot at playing for one EVERY year,current things are hardly any measure of success.  

Besides, seems to bea fine system for the Michigans and BC's, BUs of the world.[/quote]If you honestly think we can compete for the same talent as those schools, well I've got this bridge...


ECAC schools have their obvious problems in recruiting against large scholarship schools.We'll never compete for the same players. Yes we might get one every year or so, but to compete with them for three or four each year, never. We need some highly talented players like Riley Nash, some a little under the radar like the Kennedys or Devins, and alot of role players like Mugford. If we get a good combo of those we can compete in the ECAC and on some years nationally.

[ugarte]

[quote Jim Hyla][quote abmarks][quote MSE09][quote abmarks]...We will NEVER compete for a national title with the system and players we are getting.  At this rate we won't even win the league with any regularity since speed is gonna win out every time vs. size...the rest of the league is going back towards small/quicktalented offensively...team speed or puckhandling/shooting/offensive skills to compete...if coach doesn't change up the system a bit and adapt.. and then in turn be able to get some different type players, we won't see that next national title.[/quote]

Hmmm, Coach Schafer experimenting with a new system by recruiting small, highly talented, fast offense-minded players?  Such a team would have unquestionable success! ::whistle::[/quote]

If by success we mean a national title or realistic shot at playing for one EVERY year,current things are hardly any measure of success.  

Besides, seems to bea fine system for the Michigans and BC's, BUs of the world.[/quote]If you honestly think we can compete for the same talent as those schools, well I've got this bridge...


ECAC schools have their obvious problems in recruiting against large scholarship schools.We'll never compete for the same players. Yes we might get one every year or so, but to compete with them for three or four each year, never. We need some highly talented players like Riley Nash, some a little under the radar like the Kennedys or Devins, and alot of role players like Mugford. If we get a good combo of those we can compete in the ECAC and on some years nationally.[/quote]
The best Cornell teams I have seen over the last 20ish years have always started in net and built out. For the reasons Jim mentioned, we are unlikely to build a top offensive team but most teams play one goalie at a time, so we have a much better chance of attracting an elite goaltender. Since I started watching in 1990, that has included D'Alessio, Duffus, LeNeveu and now Garman, not to mention some excellent play from less heralded goalies (Crozier, Elliott, Underhill, McKee, Scrivens).

[Trotsky]

[quote ugarte]Since I started watching in 1990, that has included D'Alessio, Duffus, LeNeveu and now Garman[/quote]

And maybe Isles.  We probably won't get many blue chip scoring forwards unless other considerations are at play (Riley), but I would think Cornell would be in the running for any elite goalie, defenseman, or defensive forward.  The main obstacle for them isn't the system, but admissions requirements.

[abmarks]

[quote Trotsky][quote ugarte]Since I started watching in 1990, that has included D'Alessio, Duffus, LeNeveu and now Garman[/quote]

And maybe Isles.  We probably won't get many blue chip scoring forwards unless other considerations are at play (Riley), but I would think Cornell would be in the running for any elite goalie, defenseman, or defensive forward.  The main obstacle for them isn't the system, but admissions requirements.[/quote]

So you are saying that forwards will have a tougher time meeting admissions standards?  cmon....

[KeithK]

[quote abmarks]We probably won't get many blue chip scoring forwards unless other considerations are at play (Riley), but I would think Cornell would be in the running for any elite goalie, defenseman, or defensive forward.  The main obstacle for them isn't the system, but admissions requirements.[/quote]

So you are saying that forwards will have a tougher time meeting admissions standards?  cmon....[/quote]
Admission requirements are an obstacle for all players.  The system only for offensive minded forwards.

[abmarks]

[quote ugarte][quote Jim Hyla] ]If you honestly think we can compete for the same talent as those schools, well I've got this bridge...

ECAC schools have their obvious problems in recruiting against large scholarship schools.We'll never compete for the same players. Yes we might get one every year or so, but to compete with them for three or four each year, never. We need some highly talented players like Riley Nash, some a little under the radar like the Kennedys or Devins, and alot of role players like Mugford. If we get a good combo of those we can compete in the ECAC and on some years nationally.[/quote]
The best Cornell teams I have seen over the last 20ish years have always started in net and built out. For the reasons Jim mentioned, we are unlikely to build a top offensive team but most teams play one goalie at a time, so we have a much better chance of attracting an elite goaltender. Since I started watching in 1990, that has included D'Alessio, Duffus, LeNeveu and now Garman, not to mention some excellent play from less heralded goalies (Crozier, Elliott, Underhill, McKee, Scrivens).[/quote]

Jim- I agree we are not likely ever going to bring in class after class that could compete with the MIchigans, BC's BU's etc. And I agree that we're likely to have a mix of role players with a sprinkle of talented guys etc.  

However, there are below the radar guys or guys who want the better education that would still fit the bill I am calling for.  These guys are sprinkled around the ECAC both at the scholarship and non-scholarship schools. Watching the @harvard game, I thought we were so completely out-classed in power-play skill it was ridiculous- and this is due to speed and talent etc.  (Not to mention they had one guy who's name I cannot remember who was so speedy he made us look like we were in slow motion a couple times)

I think we have a self-fulfilling prophecy here.  Guys that want to play an up-tempo game are going to go to those places.  THere's no reason we can't get the odd under the radar talented offensive player as you mentioned.  Except we either don't go looking for them or it's not a system they'd want to play under.

Ugarte-  I'm not suggesting we turn into a "top offensive team" as you put it... just that w find a way to get a mix of offensive and defensive talent.  Goalie wise I agree with you, that's sort of the easy part.

System today screams to recruits..."want to learn to be a pro role-player on a checking line? Come to Cornell."  

I'm just asking for one guy that can creatively finish each year.  (And one midget with skills like Topher).  Just because it's been a certain way for X number of years doesn't mean we still have to be that way.